Yeah, sure, OK. It is true that there is often a simplistic approach to HC policy debate in the US, in which many folks advocating for Universal Coverage assume that every other country has everything all figured out, while those advocating for the status quo see only the bad in other countries’ care. But. Once we start to have a serious debate then we get to the meat of the matter, which is that every system has a different set of tradeoffs (as the above article outlines fairly well). And the issue is this: DIFFERENT PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO LIVE WITH DIFFERENT TRADEOFFS. We cannot have a serious discussion on HC policy reform without admitting that we do not all agree on where the concessions should be made, and to what end.
This is great!
Yeah, sure, OK. It is true that there is often a simplistic approach to HC policy debate in the US, in which many folks advocating for Universal Coverage assume that every other country has everything all figured out, while those advocating for the status quo see only the bad in other countries’ care. But. Once we start to have a serious debate then we get to the meat of the matter, which is that every system has a different set of tradeoffs (as the above article outlines fairly well). And the issue is this: DIFFERENT PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO LIVE WITH DIFFERENT TRADEOFFS. We cannot have a serious discussion on HC policy reform without admitting that we do not all agree on where the concessions should be made, and to what end.
Well said. This is a rudimentary “patient choice and physician independence” lens with some unrealistic assumptions around competition.