07-12-2007, 03:22 PM
The French and German national medical programs are quite highly rated and produce a level of care comparable to or better than our own at a much lower per capita cost. (Some small countries with national medical care spend HALF of what we do per capita and have equal or better life expectancy.) The British system gets lower marks from most observers, but the current Labour government blames that on cutbacks under Thatcher and are promising improvements. My British friends say it is working better these days, but that is just their opinion, I guess. The Canadians seem to get a lot of complaints about their system, primarily having to do with scarcity of treatment resources and waits for help with non-life threatening ailments.
The single thing that puts our system at a cost effectiveness disadvantage is the multiplicity of insurances and the fact that 30% or our medical budget goes to take care of the resultant paperwork. By eliminating that disadvantage, we just might be able to adequately take care of ALL our citizens like the other advanced nations of the world.
Cheers,
Jerry
The single thing that puts our system at a cost effectiveness disadvantage is the multiplicity of insurances and the fact that 30% or our medical budget goes to take care of the resultant paperwork. By eliminating that disadvantage, we just might be able to adequately take care of ALL our citizens like the other advanced nations of the world.
Cheers,
Jerry