how cooked do you have to be to synthesize that sentence without universal healthcare and an enormous chunk of the population living paycheck to paycheck
Some would say having a choice of which healthcare to pay for, the ability to choose a provider, the right to not pay for healthcare (maybe you value an extra holiday more than being able to go to a GP) is a good thing.
I'm from the UK, everyone I've met in the NHS has good intentions but the system itself means the standard of care is very poor. I have no option to go elsewhere with my £'s if a receptionist is extremely rude to me or a doctor won't listen.
Not to say the US system is perfect, just that adding even more government intervention (and associated plunder) by making healthcare universal, is perhaps not the answer.
It's easy, in this discussion, to get into the weeds and be distracted by details (like lots of people have by your "no option to go elsewhere with my £'s" remark).
If you want free at the point of healthcare, clearly you are better off in the UK than in the USA. If you want to pay for better care (like, well off middle class, not millions) then you're still better off in the UK than in the USA because we don't have perverse incentives for healthcare insurance, so the cost is lower even when you include the price of NHS services you aren't using. And if you're paying literal millions for healthcare then you ought to be paying for others' healthcare even if you aren't using it in principle.
Does it make logical sense that public healthcare should work better? That's irrelevant because, empirically, it does.
>Not to say the US system is perfect, just that adding even more government intervention (and associated plunder)
Uh huh. Because companies that have the explicit purpose of making as much money as possible don't "plunder". Why do you think it is that the US spends more public money per capita than many other countries and yet still has worse healthcare outcomes?
You're the richest country in the world (Andorra isn't real, don't @ me). And if you want universal healthcare, come and experience the joy of the NHS. I have to actually live with it.
Don't you have private healthcare in the UK too, if you aren't satisfied with the NHS?
IMO universal healthcare is awesome as the final safety-net that provides critical care, no matter your financial or employment situation. Yet it doesn't need be the only option. If businesses or people with money want to pay more to get care faster from private sector, that's okay too. It's how the system works here in Finland.
Ditto Australia, hybrid public / private healthcare ...
* private is good for better rooms, more scenic views, personalised spa like service and near immediate access to non life essential procedures
* public keeps the majority of people alive and triages procedures, you can get overnight heart stent surgery for free if required, might have to wait a few months for non critical knee surgery.
Private healthcare exists in the interstices of the NHS. The gorilla in the room squishes everything else into the corners.
Safety nets would be great, but a net that arrives several days after you have already fallen to the ground is not very helpful. That is what rationing-by-queueing does. Maybe Finland is great - I believe you! Britain's system is not.
I'm from the UK, everyone I've met in the NHS has good intentions but the system itself means the standard of care is very poor. I have no option to go elsewhere with my £'s if a receptionist is extremely rude to me or a doctor won't listen.
Not to say the US system is perfect, just that adding even more government intervention (and associated plunder) by making healthcare universal, is perhaps not the answer.