Common Sense about Health Care

Let’s state some facts:

The US is the only industrialized country that doesn’t provide universal health care.

According to the WHO World Health Report for 2000 the US health care system is ranked 37th which is the lowest of all the western countries (except for New Zealand)

In the US, we spend twice as much on health care per person in comparison with other OECD countries.

From these facts, we can see that there is a correlation between providing universal health care and overall health care system performance. One could even argue that it’s the reason why other industrialized countries have a better health care system because of the ability of the government to compete with private insurers and because of the lowered administrative costs. But let’s not get into too much of the details here, let’s just talk about some common sense.

Does anyone think being ranked 37th is a good thing? Probably not.
Does anyone think paying twice as much for health care is a good thing? Probably not.

Ok good, so we’ve come this far. Now how do opponents of universal health care propose that we improve our system? Instead of crying out “socialism” as your criticism of single payer, why don’t you give an example of a country that has the system that you desire? Where does the World Health Organization rank that country?

My suggestion is to look at what country has the best health care system (France), analyze why their system is so good and adopt similar policies. In other words, we should learn from the best. Who disagrees with learning from the best? Of course you can present your own criteria to show that some other system is better, but then my question would be, “What data would you be using?” I’m using the data from the World Health Organization and you?

So for those of you who oppose the idea of learning from France, give some other model that we should follow and then explain why it’s better, instead of crying out “socialism” which is just empty rhetoric.


%d bloggers like this: