By T.R. Reid
As Americans search for the cure to what ails our health-care system, we've overlooked an invaluable source of ideas and solutions: the rest of the world. All the other industrialized democracies have faced problems like ours, yet they've found ways to cover everybody -- and still spend far less than we do.
I've traveled the world from Oslo to Osaka to see how other developed democracies provide health care. Instead of dismissing these models as "socialist," we could adapt their solutions to fix our problems. To do that, we first have to dispel a few myths about health care abroad:
1. It's all socialized medicine out there.
Not so. Some countries, such as Britain, New Zealand and Cuba, do provide health care in government hospitals, with the government paying the bills. Others -- for instance, Canada and Taiwan -- rely on private-sector providers, paid for by government-run insurance. But many wealthy countries -- including Germany, the Netherlands, Japan and Switzerland -- provide universal coverage using private doctors, private hospitals and private insurance plans.
In some ways, health care is less "socialized" overseas than in the United States. Almost all Americans sign up for government insurance (Medicare) at age 65. In Germany, Switzerland and the Netherlands, seniors stick with private insurance plans for life. Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs is one of the planet's purest examples of government-run health care.
GO HERE to read the other 4. I personally found this article to be one of the most interesting and informative so far. It's well worth your time.
4 comments:
I read it last week, and found the article to be quite informative as well. I hope that your readers take the time to read it. I doubt, however, that they will, but thanks for posting a very thoughtful and serious article.
Here is a correction for you, Mr. Reid of the Washington ComPost. You are spreading yet another myth about Canada. Here is your correction, sir:
In Canada, private health insurance is illegal in six of the 10 provinces. Patients in those provinces have no options at home.
Reader, don't take my word for it; look it up: http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/164/6/825
Good.
FTFY 9:19
the lack of a flourishing private sector in Canada is most likely attributable to prohibitions on subsidization of private practice from the public plan, prohibitions that prevent physicians from relying on the public sector for the core of their incomes and turning to the private sector to top up their incomes.
From your article. another words no tax money for private practice. i would think you would agree with that.
A couple of interesting observations about this article.
One is that when comparing the bureaucracy of other nations, they conveniently left out Great Briton. I understand they are bloated with bureaucracy, and that aspect alone makes their system quite costly.
The other thing they failed to mention was how other countries handle things like malpractice lawsuits. I'd be willing to bet a large sum that they don't have any need for "tort reform" over in those other countries.
Without a full comparison of all aspects of complete health care costs, such articles are only reporting on half the story.
Post a Comment