6 ms·
I wouldn't make a claim as strong as that, but it wouldn't surprise me that it's among the best value for money - it's a tradeoff - you could spend more for bet
by grey-area 9y ago
I wouldn't make a claim as strong as that, but it wouldn't surprise me that it's among the best value for money - it's a tradeoff - you could spend more for better outcomes but at some point it's not worth it any more. The important thing is universal coverage free at the point of use. The NHS is under severe demographic and funding pressure right now, but even that doesn't negate a clear advantage over US healthcare in terms of value for money as shown in the very chart you linked.
- makomk 9y agoThe problem with using this as a template for solving the US healthcare problem, of course, is that proposing that Americans should have access to less treatments and put up with worse healthcare outcomes in order to improve value for money is a complete political non-starter.
- grey-area 9y agoThe UK also has private providers, there's no need for a public system to completely replace all care - a single payer system is usually a choice alongside private providers (but one which I think the vast majority of people would recognise as better and cheaper care). If you want slightly better outcomes, pay for private insurance/private care (and you'd pay less because single-payer will drive down demand). Most countries use a variant of single-payer or mandated insurance for good reasons, the US was an exception, not because it has exceptional requirements, but for historical reasons. https://truecostblog.com/2009/08/09/countries-with-universal-healthcare-by-date/ https://truecostblog.com/2009/08/09/countries-with-universal...