You say "the alternative" as if every other country on Earth has one system, and the US has a second system, and that first system is what we should have. Whereas all those other countries have a bunch of different systems (compare Canada to the UK to France to Singapore). And each of those systems has real tradeoffs for real people. (To be clear: I'd be fine with many, even most, of those tradeoffs, but people who aren't can't be convinced to my side just by insulting them.)
It depends on the treatment. Not all systems offer full cancer treatment, which is really expensive. What the other systems do have is free basic care - you won't be bankrupted if you break your arm or need a gall bladder removed.
It's a myth that all healthcare needs are free everywhere. There's always some diseases that will fall through a net somewhere. This of course does not mean that the situation in the US is not abysmal, just that 'everywhere else has fully free medicine' is a myth.
> People pay taxes that pay for healthcare for every single citizen. No person is without care. (end of comparison).
The Netherlands and Switzerland have a system of compulsory insurance that's closer to PPACA than it is to "pay taxes that pay for healthcare for every single citizen."
Germany has a combination of sickness funds combined with insurance mandates.
Singapore has compulsory health savings accounts.
The US technically has "no person without health care" because you can get it in emergency rooms, and I'll have to spell this out that I think that's a horrible system, but it meets a "no person without health care" checklist.
I think almost any other system would be preferable to the American system, but again they do involve real tradeoffs for real again.
EDIT FOR PARENT EDIT It's definitely not true that no one pays out of pocket for health care in any other country.
> Even single-payer Canada only has 70% of health-care costs covered by the government
I happen to live in Canada. Sure, Canadians pay out of pocket for some health care, like chiropractors and dentists, but it's important to note no Canadian ever went bankrupt or died due to lack of care (the OP) because of a car crash, slipping on ice, or simply getting hit by statistics.
Canadians don't pay out of pocket for things like broken arms or needed surgeries. Also worth noting that applies to the un-employed, mentally disabled, those unable to work, and those too young or too old to work, etc.
You can nit-pick my broad statement all you want, at the end of the day, health care in America is severely, shockingly, disgustingly lagging behind the developed world.
You should note, however, that in OP's case his mother does have some amount of health insurance; her case would very much fall under "no person is without care." It's the fine print of how much care is given in which the problem lies, and there is a fundamental tradeoff here that all countries implement slightly differently. Is the U.S. at the Pareto optimum, if such an optimum exists? Almost certainly not. But there's no guarantee that any other country is at this optimum themselves.
> People pay taxes that pay for healthcare for every single citizen. No person is without care.
There's a bit more variation than that. The main things is: "No person is without health care", but how that care is paid for, varies quite a bit.
Netherland, for example, still has privatized health insurance. Care is paid for through that insurance. The big difference is that, contrary to the US, that insurance is regulated and compulsory. Everybody has to have insurance, and insurers have to accept anyone.
What exactly is covered by the insurance also varies somewhat, but generally prolonged hospital stays and expensive life-saving procedures are completely covered. And that's the big thing, because that's what drives people into bankruptcy.
You say "the alternative" as if every other country on
Earth has one system, and the US has a second system,
and that first system is what we should have.
That's actually fairly accurate. We have a system with 15% of the population without any sort of insurance, whereas 'the other' system provides universal coverage.
The payment details may vary widely from country to country, but it's unconscionable that tens of millions of Americans are an accident or diagnosis away from permanent financial ruin.
The payment details may vary widely from country to country, but it's unconscionable that tens of millions of Americans are an accident or diagnosis away from permanent financial ruin.
I would bump that to "hundreds of millions". Even when you have insurance, most of it's garbage. Health insurance means you're probably OK, but not always.
The PPACA ("Obamacare") outlawed some of the worst garbage insurance plans (that almost qualify as scams) but that left people with no insurance, and the "market solution" isn't working at all.
If the difference is between having your life savings wiped out and going bankrupt, versus having medical costs taken care of, then regular people do not care about the nerdy details.
