Something that baffles me: Why, when discussing universal health care, does nobody ever mention australia? I think we’ve got it as close to right as anyone ever has. We have price controlled, subsidized pharmaceuticals, a working public hospital system, we can still buy private health insurance as competitive rates (I do – and it’s a heck of a lot cheaper than the figures bandied about during the US election) and when it comes down to brass tacks people get the health care they need. It doesn’t cost us anything like the NHS’s disastrous figures, and we spent a fraction on health care (per capita) of the US for the same outcomes. We have problems, yes, but they’re more to do with individual bad decisions (like the baffling decision to cut medical school places in the 90′s) than the overall approach.
I also get a giggle from the breathless claims that this is all a drain on the poor pharmaceutical companies – for a bunch of parasitic socialists, I think we punch pretty well as a country for medical research, most of which benefit (in dollar terms) those very companies. For the west wing fans out there – you know that comment that arnold vinnick made in the debate about private research producing a pill to fix stomache ulcers? That was actually discovered and developed entirely by two guys in western australia on public research grants. They got a nobel prize for it. Part of me wonders if that was a deliberate mistake by the script writers to undermine the argument – they must have known that, surely?
On the other hand, maybe it’s for the best that nobody pays attention. Maybe that’s all that stops washington from applying the sort of diplomatic pressure it does over drug policies in order to bust it.
It is actually possible to get it right, IMHO.
