Quote:
Originally Posted by cobra de capell
And where has this system worked out so far, Russia, England, or Germany? People who can afford the best still come to the US for the best health care.
|
You quoted England, so i'll reply.
You've missed the point:
Yes, the US has a world-leading track record for innovation and technological development in healthcare. This is inarguable.
However, if you dont have the resources to fund the care, then this care is denied. (As a foreigner, if i got this wrong, please correct me)
This is the central issue of tax-based vs insurance/privately funded schemes.
In the UK, the policy of successive governments regardless of political doctrine, is that its better to deliver the best that a tax-based system can offer an individual, without regard to his/her ability to pay, rather than to deny care.
One further point: until a few years ago until local laws were tightened, europe (spain in particular) entertained a small band of US health tourists, because tax-based healthcare offered 'free' potentially lifesaving treatment, that these individuals had no means to fund in their home country.
While its easy to scoff and ridicule when you are healthy and earning good $$$$, you will have a totally different perspective when your policy fails to pay out on treating the complications and long term chronic needs that inevitably occurr when you are in the 65+ group.
It is this group, no longer earning, that actually represents the greatest burden of any western healthcare system (~85% of total resources in the uk), however so funded. How to treat, with dignity, those in their twilight years is the central issue that any policy-maker has to wrestle with.