If you're talking about virtually every major country besides the U.S., though, they do have something close to free healthcare for all, and it does work, and it's actually a lot cheaper for their societies than the system we have in U.S.
And if the costs go up - it's because perhaps healthcare is better as a not-for-profit system rather than a for-profit system. Pretty hard to negotiate which hospital gives you the better deal when you're having a heart attack.
And I say this from a position of love in New Zealand - I wish you had normal government healthcare, like most other countries in the world. America spends 3x the amount on healthcare per capita compared to NZ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_hea...).
Many people think that without ACA, the US healthcare market is free, which is why it has so many problems. This could not be further from reality. We have more government distortions in our healthcare market than countries with completely socialized healthcare. For example:
Medicare: socialized medicare for the elderly, which alone creates more distortion than a universal program would cause by inflating demand/prices for non-qualifying citizens.
Medicaid: socialized healthcare for specially qualifying poor people, which creates the same distortion as Medicare.
An oppressive FDA: which, coupled with overly-powered IP laws, grants de-facto monopolies in the medical product industry. We have an incredibly expensive and subjective medical equipment pre-approval process (as compared to a less-terrible FDA that would just be in charge of labeling, preventing fraud, and maintaining accountability in the event of incidents). Then there's the length and flexibility of patent protections in our current system (maybe we could cut those protection times in half, and patent trolling would not be a lucrative industry).
Oppressive occupational licensing: It's way too hard to become a doctor of any kind, even the kinds that don't manually put things into your heart. This will be a major battle as AI comes to the point where it can better diagnose conditions and largely replace generic/non-specialized pediatrics. Of course, the government will not make this easy.
Plus a slew of more minor things like malpractice regulation, and now the ACA (which is not so minor, and which will apparently be replaced with something similar).
If we cleaned up/removed all of the problems in the above and replaced it with single payer, it would be OK and we would have something similar to New Zealand/other countries with long wait times, not as much access to specialists, slow innovation, and a system where the government gets to decide who gets the last liver transplant and who dies. That would be a less distorted market than we have today, but ONLY if accompanied by fixing the aforementioned problems.
Or we could try going the free-ish market approach and try to find a much freer balance with the FDA/USDA/occupational-licensing/scrap Medicare/Medicaid,etc., which we do not currently have AT ALL. And maybe even declare health insurance fraudulent and pay everything out of pocket (accident insurance makes more sense as a hedge against risk, which is what insurance is supposed to be, whereas all people are expected to develop health problems at some point, with a probability approaching one).
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-aetna-...
I reject the claim that 'we just can't afford it', and claim instead that the economic loss of not doing it is far greater, just not properly accounted for.
Our crap healthcare is one of the biggest drains on the economy. What the US government spends on healthcare disregarding spending by individuals is still more per capita than any other universal health service.
Here is republican senator Rand Paul on the huge budgetary expense of ACA repeal
Serious claims require serious proof.
because its compulsory. this shouldn't an argument for the ACAs effectiveness. I have to buy car insurance if i choose to drive a car on public roads. i have to pay income tax if i have income. now, by birth, i automatically owe the state. i'd like my freedom and right to choose back please.
the fact this isn't the main argument from GOP shows their incompetence.
And of course, it's not by birth, you owe nothing if you're dependent on someone else.
Which option do you think is more likely to happen?
Furthermore all of us are consumers of health care at one time or another. I admit I am resentful against the many people that take terrible care of themselves but the fact is 40% of americans will get cancer. http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2010/05/06/41-percent-of-Amer...
Due to laws like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_an... and of course for ethical reasons hospitals can't turn you away when you can't pay.
I do feel it all needs urgent reform but I do feel the ACA was an attempt to expand competition and fairness while not leaving it completely unfunded like so many government plans seem to.
It is but these days it can hard to know going by past reputation alone.
There seems to be a push by some sleazy publishers to buy prestigious medical journals and then take money to publish questionable studies.
Even the watchdogs who have tried to warn everyone have given up (or were forced to shut up).
http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/website-tracking-so-called-pred...
1. http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2017/01/12/obamacare_rep...
Edit: 2. If this is bullshit I sincerely want to know so I can understand all sides.
Is it still proper to refer to him that way?
This article was published on January 6, 2017, at NEJM.org.
Admittedly it's a bit confusing, given the online article is dated January 26, and includes "SOURCE INFORMATION: Mr. Obama is the former President of the United States." Likely inconsistency when repurposing content.
