2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumAny Dem who opposes Bernie's health care plan is carrying water for the right wingers...
Simple logic and the example of other developed countries tell us it is very possible--We keep getting told that Bernie's plan will cost $18 trillion (right wing talking point repeated by Hillary operatives).
However, simple logic and the example of many other countries proves that they are supporting a rapacious, insurance company driven system that by objective measures is a failure (except for those who profit immensely from running it.)
US Spends More on Health Care Than Other High-Income Nations But Has Lower Life Expectancy, Worse Health
New Report Finds Americans Have Fewer Doctor and Hospital Visits Than People in Other Nations; Outsized Spending Likely a Result of More Technology, Higher Prices For Care and Prescriptions Drugs
New York, N.Y., October 8, 2015 The U.S. spent more per person on health care than 12 other high-income nations in 2013, while seeing the lowest life expectancy and some of the worst health outcomes among this group, according to a Commonwealth Fund report out today. The analysis shows that in the U.S., which spent an average of $9,086 per person annually, life expectancy was 78.8 years. Switzerland, the second-highest-spending country, spent $6,325 per person and had a life expectancy of 82.9 years. Mortality rates for cancer were among the lowest in the U.S., but rates of chronic conditions, obesity, and infant mortality were higher than those abroad.
Time and again, we see evidence that the amount of money we spend on health care in this country is not gaining us comparable health benefits, said Commonwealth Fund President David Blumenthal, M.D. We have to look at the root causes of this disconnect and invest our health care dollars in ways that will allow us to live longer while enjoying better health and greater productivity.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/press-releases/2015/oct/us-spends-more-on-health-care-than-other-nations
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Seems pretty obvious to me. Single payer is exceedingly rare; most nations decided it didn't work for them.
It's entirely possible it would work for us; the one country it really has worked for is our immediate neighbor to the north, so that's at least a possibility. But this idea that it's an axiom that we must adopt Canada's system still strikes me as strange.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)we end up with nothing. Whether it is single payer or some other known successful model, it is insane to keep trying to "tweak" the current system--it is a Rube Goldberg machine that is vastly more inefficient and ineffective than so many other models. And so many of the "serious thinkers," even some we love, are fighting for the status quo.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)If you were talking to someone who was claiming "we can't change anything", that would make sense; what I can't figure out is why you think that was apropos here.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)And how do we get there?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Human101948
(3,457 posts)I will have to investiage that further.
Nonhlanhla
(2,074 posts)Not all of them have single payer. While single payer is in many ways ideal, it would be very difficult to overhaul the massive healthcare system in the US at this point. It would have been better if it had been done just after WWII (or earlier), when healthcare was a smaller industry. But it wasn't done, alas. But some countries develop either an insurance mandate system or a two tier system. Universal healthcare has not yet been achieved in the US, but the ACA, which is similar to the insurance mandate system of countries like Germany, has potentially laid the groundwork.
http://truecostblog.com/2009/08/09/countries-with-universal-healthcare-by-date/