3 ms·
Presumably you don't just mean the creation of healthcare companies in the US that are foreign-owned but still subject to the exact same current US system (beca
by EliRivers 5y ago
Presumably you don't just mean the creation of healthcare companies in the US that are foreign-owned but still subject to the exact same current US system (because that would just be the same as now, essentially); presumably you mean something really innovative (or crazytown, depending on view!) like allowing a section of a US population to outright join a foreign system.
For example, Seattle decides to switch to the UK NHS, cuts a deal with the UK whereby everyone in Seattle pays into the UK treasury at the same rate UK citizens do towards the NHS, and the NHS takes on a responsiblity for universal healthcare in Seattle for Seattle citizens. Is this the kind of idea you mean? Certainly would be interesting and as a spitballing conversation piece, fun to discuss.
- philjohn 5y agoThe problem with that is that, when it's an extra cost, the uptake may well skew towards those who are more dependent on healthcare with chronic conditions. Single payer works because the risk pool is spread overy everyone in the entire country - and everyone has to pay (it's part of income taxes). That's why the ACA mandate was a thing.
- EliRivers 5y agoYes. It would have to be everybody in. All of Seattle pays in, no exceptions. You say "the problem with that". Pitched another way, we could say "the benefit of that"... when it's an extra cost Would it necessarily be an extra cost? I understand that the amount typically paid in the US on health insurance, by the individual and employers, compares badly with the amount paid in many other systems that provide better healthcare for less money.
- lotsofpulp 5y agoThen the healthy/richer people move to a suburb of Seattle. The reason nationwide taxpayer funded healthcare works is because it is not easy to move to another country.