Look around the world and you'll see there are more options than "private" and "single payer."
 | By Alexandra Sifferlin Senior Staff Editor, Opinion |
The United States spends an extraordinary amount of money on health care, despite being one of the few higher income countries without universal coverage. Health care reform — once a central political debate — for now seems to have faded to the fringes. |
Aaron Carroll, who writes frequently for Times Opinion about health care, finds all of the above frustrating. But he shared recently that what he also finds perplexing is the fact that when debate about the future of U.S. health care is happening on the public stage, it seems limited by a frequent assumption that there are only two options: the "private" system we have now or a single-payer system, like Canada's. |
"That's always been an odd choice to me because true single-payer systems like that one are relatively rare in the world, and Canada performs almost as poorly as we do in many international rankings," he writes in a guest essay. "Moreover, no one has a system quite as complicated as ours." |
Carroll visited five countries recently with the goal of better understanding their health care systems: Britain, France, New Zealand, Australia and Singapore. What he concluded was that there's a far greater breadth of options for improving health care in America. He shares those options in his guest essay, with the goal of pushing the health care reform debate in a more creative direction. |
Carroll's own views on the best approach to health care in America have evolved over time, though one takeaway has held steady: Coverage should be universal. "Today, though," he writes, "I really don't care how we get to universal coverage." It's a worthy goal, and one worthy of much more innovative thinking. |
As Carroll writes, "We could change things if we wanted to." |
Here's what our readers are saying: |
I share the belief that our health insurance system is archaic and benefits mostly the huge insurance companies. A certain level of care should be available to all citizens and paid for by the taxpayers. But that care cannot bankrupt our nation. And those who have the means are entitled to pay for a higher level of care. But we must realize that those who are profiting mightily from our current system will fight change tooth and nail. — R. Anderson, South Carolina "Insurance is really just about moving money around. It's the least important part of the health care system." We don't have a health care system. We have a wealth care system. And that wealth care system is the basis for pretty much every one of the problems our country faces. — Pedigrees, Southwest Ohio We moved to the Netherlands (thanks to my husband's dual nationality, we had the choice) partly because of the appalling state of health care and health insurance in the U.S. We don't miss the outrageous costs for both insurance and care, nor do we miss the constant battles with insurance companies for processing claims. Is the system in the Netherlands perfect? Of course not. But at least here, the Dutch recognize that health care is a human right and a communal need. Until Americans are willing to acknowledge basic health care as a right and not a privilege, which means voting out those beholden to the pharmaceutical and insurance industries and accepting that slightly higher taxes just might have the advantage of "lifting all boats," I don't see the situation changing for the better in the U.S. — Proud Liberal, Netherlands |
See what more readers are discussing and join the conversation in the comments. |
Here's what we're focusing on today: |
Forward this newsletter to friends to share ideas and perspectives that will help inform their lives. They can sign up here. Do you have feedback? Email us at opiniontoday@nytimes.com. |
|
No comments:
Post a Comment