iron_mike wrote:
this weird form of american ethnic exceptionalism is a common argument against single-payer health whenever this debate comes up. it's always some variation on the idea that "america's population is too diverse for universal health care!" i find it bizarre. I'm not against single payer healthcare if someone can show me how it can be paid for in the US......and eliminate insurance companies, big pharma charging us crazy high drug prices, and malpractice lawyers putting fear into daily medical practice. The ACA attempted to do the first two.....until the lobbyists became involved and killed any insurance company or big pharma control. first, many countries, including america's neighbor to the north, are also quite 'ethnically diverse,' whatever that means, and they seem to manage to run a fairly cost-effective universal system with solid outcomes. Canada does seem to do a good job. Its citizens enjoy their coverage and the only real complaint seems to be some of the wait times. I don't know if that's a legitimate complaint or not as I have not done the research to find out. But, Canada has a population of 37 million, compared to 326 million for the US, and only spends 20 billion on its military, compared to 610 billion for the US. So I know this could turn into a debate about the US inappropriately using its money for war instead of healthcare but I did not intend it to be that.
second, i have no idea why 'ethnic diversity' is supposed to make health care delivery into an intractable problem. (unless this is some sort of dogwhistle for other things.) It doesn't turn it intractable but it definitely makes it a lot more complicated. Using Japan as an example again. If you have a very homogenous population, it is easier to see outcomes to medical treatment, response to surgery, etc...So, if you know that drug A cures lung cancer in 75% of Japanes then you know that is what needs to be budgeted for each year. On the other hand, in the US, there is such a variety of patient diversity that you must have multiple treatment regimens available for many different types of people. You can't just say "well, 40% will need this, and 20% will need that one". That probably doesn't make sense but its the best I can think of to explain right now.
it's rightly pointed out that america's rates of obesity are quite high. but wouldn't more access to affordable health care also mitigate that? I would hope it would but I doubt it. For decades now, we have had more public education on the need for better eating (food pyramid is an example) and exercise than ever before. Despite this, our population is less active, and more obese, than it has ever been before. I don't know if this same trend exists in other countries. As I've stated before, I'm not trying to be "US centric" on purpose. Its all I know and I welcome input from others with knowledge of other countries.
switzerland was cited above as an example: much less obesity, yes. but then switzerland's smoking rates are over 2/3rds higher than those of the USA. Switzerland has a population of 8.6 million and not much diversity. Very small sample size. Also, Switzerland is only second to the US in healthcare costs.
i could go on; anyway like you i suppose i've seen enough of the healthcare world to know that "it's unprecedentedly complicated to deliver health care in just this one country" is an unpersuasive argument. I'm still waiting on someone to convince me how we can get universal healthcare in the US, and afford it too. I'm not opposed to universal healthcare. As a matter of fact, I see many patients without insurance and I always feel for them, and wish they did have some type of coverage. Unfortunately, until someone can tell me how we are going to pay for it, get rid of insurance companies, control drug costs (yet still be one of the world leaders in new drug development), and account for the costs of defensive medicine (malpractice), I am going to keep talking about the difficulties of this healthcare utopia.