Except that it’s working in every other industrialized country in the world, for less money, and with better outcome.
I think both ends of that equation must be questioned. The “better outcomes” depends on what metrics one uses. If it’s “life expectancy”, that’s one thing. if it’s “infant mortality” it’s another. If it’s expected life span, it’s another. And each of those metrics is subject to argument; sometimes very good argument.
it is extremely difficult to measure “less money” as well. First of all “less money” for what care? The U.S., for example, has the highest number of MRI units per capita of any country other than Japan, and it’s much higher than even most developed countries. So, if I get care for my shoulder injury in, say, Italy, but no MRI, then the physician would not know, for example, whether I have a simple bursitis, a partial-thickness tear or a full-thickness rotator cuff tear that requires immediate surgery for proper treatment.
One of the reasons why medical care is more expensive in the U.S. is that in many other countries costs are 'invisible". For example, in Austria, medical school is free if you’re an Austrian. The government pays for it. In the U.S., it isn’t free and if the doctor has school loans, it’s going to be paid by the patients and their insurers. But either way, the public pays. But when “costs of care” are compared, the cost of maintaining medical schools is not included.
In France, the government pays for malpractice insurance for doctors in the “public” sector, and there are special courts for those cases. Plaintiffs’ attorneys are paid by the hour, not as a percentage like here. Those costs are not included when people compare the “costs of care”.
And, as I mentioned before, in France the physicians have no duty to bill the government or mess with it in getting paid. They’re on government salary. Patients pay their own way and do all the billing work. They either do it right and get reimbursed, or they don’t. A lot of medical provider staff here does that work for the patients. But they add that to costs.
So, superficial comparison of “costs” and even “outcomes” doesn’t tell a person anything.
It’s very difficult to make real “apples to apples” comparisons, when one of the apples is actually a nectarine painted to look a lot like an apple.
Of course, if one looks at the cost of insurance, it’s another picture. One problem with it in this country is that people expect insurance to pay for everything, or at least most of it, whereas the most desperate need is for catastrophic care. If we did not insist on insurance paying for nearly everything, it would not be anywhere near as expensive. Of course, Obamacare changes that for the non-subsidized exchange victims by making their deductibles sky-high. Of course, that applies to catastrophic care too, which is really a bad approach.
