As someone form a country with a working, good, universal health care system, the notion that many Americans have that it somehow can't work in reality is very puzzling to me. How can that be true when it plainly does work in many places?
The argument that a private insurance based system could be better, fairer, or more efficient can be made (although not if you hold up the current US system as a positive example...), but any argument that it's the only thing
that will work is frankly ludicrous.
Healthcare in the US, even in its incredibly broken state, still "does work". We can compare anecdotes all day long, but that tells us nothing, anecdotes are not data.
I believe it's generally known to be true that health care in the UK, where I live now (I have also lived in the USA in the past), whether measured by % of GDP or by monetary cost, is much cheaper per capita than health care in the USA[1]. Life expectancy, probably a good measure of the efficacy of a health care system, is very close, perhaps with the UK having a small lead, if anything[2].
If we were to allow anecdotes, I'd also say (and I find this to be a good thing) that people in the UK don't avoid going to the dentist or doctor because it's too expensive. I'm sure that there must be studies that show this to be true.
Even if we're not allowing the anecdotal argument, however, if you're prepared to say that the system in the USA 'does work', you're surely prepared to say that the British system also works? Personally, I have a hard time not believing that, since it seems to produce comparable, if not better outcomes, for less cost, it's the better of the two systems.
Note that I'm /not/ arguing at all that a private health insurance system could not be devised that also worked as well - perhaps better. I'm also not arguing that any public system will be perfect. To argue that a public system /can't work/ though is, as I said, ludicrous.
Until we have a cure for the metabolic syndrome, I'd say that comparison of health care quality by life expectancy doesn't actually do what you think it does. America is incredibly obese, and this is a lifestyle choice that makes comparisons of the quality of care quite difficult.
I wouldn't even try to make the argument that public healthcare doesn't work. Comparing across systems and cultures (again, obese vs the rest of the world) is tough to do well. I was thinking perhaps some measure of in-hospital mortality would be useful, but even that would be confounded. Perhaps the Massachusetts model might work for in-US comparison to other states, but MA is not really comparable to single payer systems in the rest of the world.
It's a really interesting topic and I wish I weren't at work so I could brainstorm more with you about how to get a clean comparison.
It is a talking point from our country's politicians (who already have what would be offered under a real universal healthcare bill) who are in the pocket of private insurance companies, big pharma, and the like.
Call me a cynic if you like, but that is the only real argument I can think of. There is no data to back the claim up, only anecdotes about what it's like in other countries.
The data points to universal healthcare being better.
The argument that a private insurance based system could be better, fairer, or more efficient can be made (although not if you hold up the current US system as a positive example...), but any argument that it's the only thing that will work is frankly ludicrous.