In the age of globalized tweets, diggs and links on health gadgets like international sexual health sites to gizmodo eyeglasses and ear-wax cleaners, it’s surprising that information on international health care systems and policy isn’t more popular, especially for red-blooded Americans who pride ourselves on having the best of it all – even when that means paying more for flashy high-tech specialty health care that fails to keep us healthy.
After all, overused (and expensive) medical care is a money-maker for our medical technology and health insurance industries who profit when people use glam medical care for otherwise preventable illnesses – illnesses that would be caught earlier in the health care delivery system if we had an adequate (though less profitable) primary health care that ensured quality care for all.
45 million uninsured US citizens can tell us all about their take on “quality of care” issues. The very un-sexy market-based US health care system fails us, time and again, despite its increasing profitability.
Could this snake-oil scenario be the cause of our pop-lit censorship on comparative international health systems performance in the US, or is health reform just not sexy? Consider this before you answer: there’s nothing more caustic to snake oil sales than dead snakes, and the US health care non-system is full of ’em.
While health inequities aren’t sexy (as we know in New Mexico, the poorest state in the nation), fixing them with sound policies could be easy as cream pie if we followed the science instead of the money, like our international neighbors do.
It’s time to ask about health reform censorship in the US and NM, and to lay-out some specs on how the rest of the wealthy world manages to care for their people better than we do, and on less $$.
We’re welcoming a new president who has simultaneously stated and rescinded his preference for a “perfect” single-payer health system – you know, the “socialist” one that successfully contains costs and covers everyone in all other industrialized nations.
And health reformers in NM are prepping for legislative battle with each other in Santa Fe armed with divergent opinions about a single-payer system – despite a popular local plan and evidence about its efficiency and universal coverage even in rural, tribal and poor communities.
Given the reform movement’s cognitive dissonance amidst such need, there’s no better time for an international recap of health systems that actually work. (You won’t find ours on the list.) You tell me if you find them sexy, or just common-sensical:
Oh, Canada. The scourge of Socialized Medicine butting up against our very Capitalistic borders. Canadians don’t worry about medical bills and pre-existing conditions, and they ration their health care far less than we do, especially at the primary and preventive-care levels. No surprise, then, that the US comes in last place of 19 industrialized nations on preventable deaths.
Health care is not a commodity here; it’s a human right. If the US is the international human rights leader, then who’da thunk we’d fall behind lowly Cuba on community health indicators? But, it’s true. The Fidel Revolutionaries live longer, produce healthier babies, and their primary care infrastructure beats all others’, with a family doctor practically on every corner courtesy of dedicated health planning and public financing. Imagine them without a US embargo.
The National Health Service Corps do a good job of keeping adults of all income levels healthy but know its more tough because the podiatry coding guidelines 2020 has changed and the company know focus more on new updates that has more potential.
income adults in England fare better than higher-income adults in the US in terms of heart disease, diabetes, cancer and other chronic conditions. Fish n’ Chips, anyone?
Insurers play only a supplemental role here, secondary to governmental coverage and – voila! – France tops the World Health Organization’s list of high-performing health systems. (The US is #37.)
Our neighbor to the South seems to produce healthier people than we do, at least if you judge by the health of recent immigrants to the US. (Why, exactly, do we continue to ban undocumented immigrants from Medicaid??) Despite Mexico’s widespread poverty, many population health indicators are on the up. The government fills the gaps of employee-anchored health care, especially in rural areas. It works.