You might want to think again about "free" socialist medicine

I never claimed it was a more equitable tax structure, I claimed our effective taxes and spending are slightly lower as a percentage of the economy.

You make a good point nonetheless, but you can always have our taxation and spending with whatever structure to that you want. Get it all through consumption tax for all it matters.

 

In Australia we have a different public/private mix which for the most part works fine. Go to any doctor and if he charges more than the medicare rebate you are welcome to pay out of pocket.

Your private health cover is for things like private rooms (I have good private health cover and loved the room - I got it quickly, didn't have to wait, it overlooked the river and had far more attentive nurses), osteopathy, podietry, major dental, etc.

My main issue with universal health care is people use it to justify controlling your life.

 

We farm our sheep. With the exception of Tasmania we don't bum them.

 

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Yes, on a country basis "11th" place of the US seems a bit unfair. Afterall, apples are apples and oranges are oranges, and in this instance they should be analyzed collectively as "fruit".

Which means that for the above analysis, the Overall Ranking "Top Eleven" become the Top Seven:
1 - UK (which is supposedly leaving the EU)
2 - AUStralia
3 - EU (European Union)
4 - New Zealand
5 - Switzerland (which is not a member of the EU)
6 - Canada
7 - US

Suffice it to say that in terms of numbers, the EU is more comparable with the US ... but I am not sure that means very much. It is the healthcare-system that matters most in the ranking and not necessarily population. And in that regard, the UK remains "top country" for overall healthcare.

 

I'm not so sure. But neither is a factual comparison of any good.

American healthcare costs are a real collection of myriad costs that often have no correlation to a sickness whatsoever. Whatever the insurance-company will pay for is typically what gets paid. (Im' told.)

The real analysis is What is the Health of the Population As A Whole. And that is best defined, I suggest, by average age at death. There again, Europe beats the US by a long-shot ...

PS: I will go out on a limb and suggest that (In the US) professional doctors will try to get as much out of a patient as they can irregardless of finding the lowest-cost solution. I sensed that once in the US recently, and got up and walked out of the doctor's office. (I was treated in France later at a much, much lower cost to the French National Healthcare System!)

 

And there is an added extra I was not aware of until recently

Standardisation of care

Read a research paper on why the maternal mortality is higher in the USA and basically every OBGYN has his/her own protocols. We have statewide protocols based on “best practice” guidelines so there is standardisation of care. Downside is each state in Aus has a different set UK has the “NICE” guidelines and other countries also have these standards. Doesn’t mean you can’t alter treatment based on circumstances but it DOES mean if you are back of whoop whoop and faced with say, a patient with eclampsia, you know what to do.

 

Second ain’t bad

 

Only because you-plural copy-catted the UK! ;^)

But, seriously, how similar is Australian healthcare to the UK? (If that is what you may be referring to - as I have no idea, really.)

It is not bad at all to learn from another's experiences. America has this "We are no-doubt the greatest!" problem-syndrome that prevents it from learning from others*.

The US learned ABSOLUTELY NOTHING from the UK when (somewhere around 1950) the latter announced a National Healthcare Service. (See here**)

Wounded Gi's went back to nothing after WW2. (Which I know personally from a uncle wounded in France in WW2 who came back.). At least the Brits took care of their own with its NHS ...

*Though, this Challenge of the New Age upon us may well change attitudes - if Uncle Sam can rid itself of Donald Dork. If not, another four-years wasted and the effort will become eventually even more difficult.
**Here (from the Independent of London): Having experienced the US and the UK healthcare systems, here's the truth about the differences – and no, Donald Trump isn't right - excerpt:

 

That's your wages, removed from your pocket

 

Well that's nice but are you having to choose between a roof over your head or food?

 

NZ has a similar system called PAYE, no-one cares as most would rather that they did not bankrupt themselves paying medical costs. Somethings are, unsurprisingly, more important than money.

 

Very rarely as most countries with this this system also have social welfare systems which help both the unemployed and the working poor.

 

Do you think you're not paying for it?
You're spending that money, you just don't see it.
You pay for it your whole life, with all the things you can't do or buy with the money that was taken

 

WHY NOT A NATIONAL HEALTHCARE SERVICE FOR EVERYBODY?

Perhaps BB is in a country that has a National Health Service, which is why she does not need to pay for her Healthcare Insurance. Ever think of that?

And, if you have healthcare insurance in the US, that means (more than likely) that your company pays for it. Which means this:
*The company must recuperate its HC-costs from the products/services it sells.
*Meaning their customers all help pay for the company's privatized HC-insurance.
*Meaning also a great many of its customers who cannot afford private HC insurance on their own are paying for others!
*Meaning the HC-system in America is Totally Unfair!

Do you think that it is "fair and equitable" for all. And why is the DoD different, meaning the health-care of its people are paid out of Income Taxation - like other government services? Because the DoD protects All Americans?

Well, a National Healthcare Service is intended for exactly the same result ... !

PS: Such that we are all on the same footing regarding national Healthcare Services provided at government expense in the US, from "Overview of the Government Health Care Programs" here:

PPS: And what about the other two-thirds? Why not a National Healthcare Service for everybody financed by national taxation - just like the DoD!

 

All the liberals that want government paid medicine assumes the OTHER GUYs will foot the bill.

 

Why should your neighbor that earns twice as much as you, pay more than twice what you pay, for the same healthcare?

 

Exactly.
They want everyone that earns more than them to pay a progressively higher tax, as a percentage of income, to get the same healthcare.
So the guy down the road that earns 5 times their income, pays significantly more than five time the tax, for the same coverage, just so these leechers can have theirs at a much lower cost.

What's next, prices for box seats at sporting events, top tier rooms at resorts in the Riviera Maya, and brand new macbook pros, based on income?

 

The "other guys" are also those who benefit when they need it because it's National Healthcare.

Duhhhhhhhh ....

 

They're paying for it "Duhhhhhhhh"!

 

The socialism I like is fire protection. Everybody throws in some $, and we get a fire department that serves everybody.

 

National Healthcare, Socialized Medicine, Medicare For All, are all scams, a carrot on a stick during elections and how the government justifies outrageous taxes the rest of the time. All taxes go into a general fund and as the government swells each new "program" demands a piece of the pie. Eventually the government has to borrow more money or dip into funds already planned for in the budget or raise taxes or some combination of all of these. You wouldn't run your household like this, why should we trust a government that does. This is why letting the government run any sort of business and let's face it that is what healthcare is, is such a bad idea. The government doesn't do a whole lot of things right because those that run the government know they don't have to. You can vote out someone who is ineffective but not corrupt bureaucrats and in that sense representative government is a farce.

Canada and the UK have notoriously horrible healthcare although you wouldn't know it by the way it's portrayed in American Media. In reality, in Canada, you enter a hospital emergency room. For two months prior, you suffered abysmal pain, unable to shower, straighten out, or sit. You're the Hunchback of Notre Dame, debilitated with no reprieve. When one of your legs isn't numb from hip to toe, you experience sharp stabbing sensations that make you want to slit your wrists.

Yet you do exactly what your nation's one-tier medical system instructs you to do: you visit a family doctor who routinely suggests an MRI. And since you live in the proud lap of liberalism, which ensures the all-inclusive equity of suffering, you are told that your MRI is a mere twelve months away. A referral to a spine clinic was offered at a six months' wait. Lucky for you, a generous dose of an opioid was prescribed in the interim. The 60 Oxycontin pills (the most addictive opioid on the market, with a street value of $60/pill) were augmented by 270 pills of Gabapentin, a drug designed to deceive your brain into thinking you are not in pain. You walk away a guaranteed addict with a pocket full of mind-altering chemicals.

By now you should be entirely consoled by the idea that many are in the same boat of egalitarianism for suffering and queues.The thought of equitable misery is expected to work as an instant pain-reliever. This barbaric philosophy is at the crux of government policies that outlaw private health care in this country. Rather than a long description of the runaround this person experienced, I'll jump to the conclusion. Frustrated by this months long trip down the rabbit hole, they traveled to the US, was treated immediately (surgery) and is now pain free but $20,000 dollars poorer. This is ridiculous, this may be anecdotal but is a fair assessment of the situation in Canada. Canada's single-payer public health care system, heavily funded by taxpayers, forced over one million patients to wait for necessary medical treatments last year. An all-time record in a country of only 36 million. The only thing Canadians are guaranteed is a spot on a waitlist. Trouble with "affordable" and "free": both are very expensive.Think about that, only 36 million people in Canada's health system, there are 327 million living in the US. There is no private option in Canada and healthcare is mandatory. Be careful what you wish for.

 

Insurance is a front loaded payment mechanism. It doesn't provide you with CARE. I would rather pay cash for my care, and do in most circumstances. Interesting to think that someone has no problem with paying extraordinary taxes, and enjoys being told they cannot seek help outside a predesignated group of practitioners, even if they pay with their own funds, believes they have the best situation.

Your lack of understanding of my post, where I say NOTHING about wanting insurance, or supporting insurance, perhaps you need to rethink your definition of stoopidity....

 

How does private insurance compete with free insurance.

 

You are only half-interpreting the word "insurance". Let's look at its Internet definition:

I was talking in terms of the second definition above.

But, if you were unable to understand that subtlety, it is most certainly YOUR problem and not MINE ...

 

They are scams only by those sick with the notion that taxation is somehow offensive or oppressive in any True Democracy. They are not scams for those of us who think the US is way behind the eight-ball in terms of its Discretionary Spending. If you looked at the US's Discretionary Budget then you will see that more half of it goes to the DoD - but I don't see you ranting about that unfortunate imbalance.

Since when was protecting your life and property against confiscation by a foreign power by means of military invasion more important that spending funds on enhancing or bettering one's lifespan? Especially when said lifespan just took a major contraction because of the present Opioid Epidemic in the US that is strangely NOT HAPPENING IN EUROPE where opioids cannot be bought over-the-counter! Different strokes for different folks?

You and I are living not only in different countries but as a result also on different ideological planets - and so be it! My lifespan here in Europe is now four-years longer than yours in the US! That is ALL that is important ... !