wgdsr wrote: ↑Sun Dec 06, 2020 8:05 pm
can you quote where you get your number on almost all places less than half? i saw u.s is $11k + per capita. and spending more for healthcare is bad?
canada that brook quoted, per fraser institute is at 21 weeks for necessary procedures and healthcare. not elective. average. do you find that to be the case in your experience?
i can read that you have to claim a gp (looked at 5 countries) and then you are at their discretion for referrals. and that in most of these countries, physicians put in their minimum time for state run stuff and prioritize private where they can get paid.
do i think most people that spout off about state run success are people that maybe haven't done homework? i do. is our own healthcare system a win across the board? no.
do we have something to lose if we nick (maybe a lot) innovation by cutting biotech's ability to get paid on drug and other co's medical advancement development? we do. imo.
do i wish for and hope for an equitable solution that serves us all? i do.
Per Capita Spending:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... per_capita - every country except 3 are 58% of our costs or less per capita (I'll change my statement to "close to half" since I was just eyeballing it at first). And the other three are still a couple thousand less per capita.
And yes, I think spending that much more to end up with a pretty unhealthy population vs. those countries that spend much less is bad. Just getting people out of the ER and getting them preventative care will save us a lot of money.
As far as wait times in Canada, that wait for medically necessary procedures varies widely by area and what procedure you need, that's why they used "average". Obviously emergencies are seen immediately, and things like oncology treatments begin pretty quickly, whereas necessary but not threatening issues you hop into the queue (and jump ahead if it becomes more serious). Do you have a similar analysis of US wait times to that Fraser institute study? Would love to compare. From a quick search a few countries have faster wait times than the US for various things even with a universal system.
And of course in the US, if you can't afford that medically necessary procedure, then the wait time is until it becomes life threatening and you go to the ER. Not really comparable in that regards.
I will echo Brooklyn's question - what improvements would you make to get more people coverage, save money and prevent medical bankruptcies? I've got a few suggestions to work within the current system before switching over to a universal insurance system, but we don't seem to hear a lot of suggestions from people who like the current system over a universal system.
I will say we have a pretty great system for the wealthy, as a fan mentioned.