5 ms·
Indeed. An alternative view on this: > The state would pay for almost all of its residents’ medical expenses — inpatient, outpatient, emergency services, denta
by mtgx 9y ago
Indeed. An alternative view on this:
> The state would pay for almost all of its residents’ medical expenses — inpatient, outpatient, emergency services, dental, vision, mental health, and nursing home care — under the plan, and Californians would not have any premiums, copays, or deductibles.
> That’s an incredible deal for just 15% of GDP, which again is lower than the US as a whole already spends on health care.
http://mattbruenig.com/2017/05/22/californias-surprisingly-cheap-single-payer-plan/ http://mattbruenig.com/2017/05/22/californias-surprisingly-c...
- pasbesoin 9y agoI like seeing dental included (per the parent comment). Increasingly discovered to be the genesis of numerous systemic problems (e.g. cardiovascular, for one) when not cared for. A really big opportunity for the kind of up front, preventative maintenance that saves big money / expense, down the road. Dental care needs to be wrapped into the fold of overall healthcare. Its exclusion creates far more trouble than just bad teeth.
- laurencerowe 9y agoSingle payer would be a great improvement on the current nightmare of American healthcare, but let's not kid ourselves that this is an incredible deal. The UK spent 8.5% of GDP on healthcare in 2013 (life expectancy in the UK is marginally higher than in California.) Most European countries spend around 11%.
- dogma1138 9y agoSingle payer != universal health care. Single payer is likely no not work in the US, but there are plenty of other solutions out there. Europe has universal health care, not every country has single payer the UK and France do, NL and Germany do not. Also in all honesty unless you have cancer or something else which completely degenerative the NHS is garbage that no one outside of the low income brackets wants to deal with.
- DanBC 9y ago> the NHS is garbage that no one outside of the low income brackets wants to deal with. The various patient surveys and patient satisfaction scores disagree with you. The fact that almost no-one uses private insurance is also proof that most people like and will use the NHS, even with all the problems it has. And the numbers of people with private health insurance has reduced, not increased, since 2011.
- DanBC 9y agohttp://visual.ons.gov.uk/how-does-uk-healthcare-spending-compare-internationally/ http://visual.ons.gov.uk/how-does-uk-healthcare-spending-com... > ONS’s new internationally-comparable “health accounts“1 show that the UK’s total healthcare spending in 2014 was £179 billion, or 9.9% of GDP. > As a percentage of GDP, the UK spent less on healthcare than USA, Japan, France and Germany and a similar percentage to Canada. The USA spent the most on healthcare as a percentage of GDP at 16.6%. And it's not all private insurance for the US. In 2014 the US government spent more than 8% GDP, compared to UKs just under 8%. > Despite less than half of the USA’s total healthcare expenditure coming from government expenditure or compulsory insurance schemes, it still spends more per person on these financing schemes than the UK- £3,111 in the USA in 2014, compared with £2,210 in the UK. In the USA spending on privately-funded healthcare is over five times more per person than in the UK. The US government spends more per person on healthcare than the UK, Canada, Italy, or the OECD average, and gets worse outcomes across a range of measures.