In the United States, infants born premature or with major medical problems are given extensive medical attention which comes with both higher survival rates in difficult cases [although may contribute to the calculation of overall life span ] and higher costs. Similarly, elderly patients are given very high quality medical treatment. However, one result is a distortion of the overall statistics on costs and on lifespan. In addition, in the statistics cited above, there were significant omissions, such as much higher survival rates for patients in the United States with such conditions as various types of cancer.
It’s important, however, not to confuse medical care with medical insurance.
Useful insurance programs such as HSA’s with catastrophic coverage are generally denied to individuals for reasons only known to people such as former/ now deceased Senator Ted Kennedy RIP who fought to his death for decades the idea that individuals may purchase their own medical insurance at affordable premiums on the competitive interstate market.
In addition, some state governments not only prohibit individuals from purchasing affordable medical insurance but also restrict certain types of insurance to companies with more than one employee [in other words, sole proprietorships are prohibited from buying “group insurance” which tends to be less expensive]. And some state governments also require mandated coverage for things that purchasers may not want included … which drives up the premiums.
Another issue that the legal system refuses to address is the cost of the lack of tort reform … meaning that there are frivolous lawsuits. In most of the world, the concept of “loser pays” applies to lawsuits, with insurance being available to cover costs of litigation. In the United States, the concept of “deep pockets” pays which drives up the cost of medical malpractice and related insurance, driving up premiums unnecessarily and also results in so-called “defensive medicine” in which doctors order tests that are unnecessary medically but which are necessary in the event of the need to defend against a lawsuit.
There are issues that do need to be addressed, but the political and legal establishments have adamantly refused to address them. Or they HAVE addressed these issues to the detriment of the patient. The state of Texas passed some form of tort reform that resulted in significant reductions in costs.
In the United States, you can shop around for competitive insurance policies, customized insurance policies, and competitive interstate policies and competitive premiums for everything … house, commercial, boat and maritime, motorcycle, aviation, fire, liability, auto, comprehensive, umbrella, … except medical insurance.
The current medical insurance structure in the United States is a residue of World War II, when owing to wage controls, employers lobbied to be able to offer medical insurance as a benefit in order to keep valuable employees. This has resulted in terrible distortion over the years. AND, the Federal tax structure severely penalizes individuals and rewards employers as regarding medical expenses and medical insurance costs. It would only take a minor change to allow individuals to eliminate the tax penalties. In addition, truly tragic cases could be paid for by some form of tax credits administered by hospitals; the individuals, once vetted, would not pay anything and the hospitals would take care of all the paperwork.
[In fact, why is it that HOSPITALS cannot sell medical insurance; should be a piece of cake.] Individuals should be able to buy any kind of medical insurance they want from any insuror including your neighborhood hospital, and have the policy fully transferable in the event you move to some other location.
The insurance industry has complained that they CAN offer low cost, competitive medical insurance [and in many cases they do], but that the policy offerings are unfairly restricted to those people fortunate enough to live only in certain states or work for certain employers.
Because I showed you that your opinion of “extremely successful” NHS is not based in reality? Bad healthcare for all simply doesn’t compete with superior healthcare for most.
