10 year longer life span in Canada for one disease compared to US.

https://arstechnica.com/science/201...ive-10-years-longer-in-canada-than-in-the-us/

That is a pretty massive difference wrt cystic fibrosis life spans and that is before Republicans remove health insurance for 26 million and make it much more expensive for twice that amount.

Can we have true single payer already?

What makes you think cradle to grave government health care will make Americans healthier?

Because it has worked every where else it has been competently deployed?

CF thirty years ago was pretty much a death sentence. That sport commentator Frank Deford's daughter was born with it and passed on when she was eight; his book and the movie it spawned got a lot of attention to this illness. Nowadays, it's entirely possible to live into one's early forties with the illness, but it *is* crazy expensive. One estimate I saw was about $2000 a month for all the various medications needed, to say nothing of those who require lung transplants.

Evidence?

The real world wrt cost to benefit.

what will you accept as evidence?

Something from The Economist would be a good place to start.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/01/daily-chart-7

we also live longer





Or this analysis

What's Slovenia's secret, I wonder!

If it is like the rest of the former Yugoslavia which I saw... A healthy diet, complete lack of Western fast food in most towns, and a culture where people mostly walk every where. Oh, and also decent to good public health care. The old Yugoslav state spent big on social systems and invested huge into education and human capital. That meant an unusually high number of trained doctors and nurses supported by well financed public health campaigns not to mention a modern hospital in every town with lots of neighborhood clinics.

The walking and taking public transport thing was probably a result of economic necessity from the old days when a Yugo was the only car you could buy and there was a 10 year waiting list to get one. On the upside there is decent to good light rail in most cities, lots of bike paths and sidewalks as well as walking & hiking trails, and the local culture kind of pushes people to use them instead of driving.

Oh, and at least the coastal areas have a great Mediterranean climate conducive to year round out door activities, lots of public parks with sports fields, and wide spread adoption of the famed Mediterranean diet. The commies did do a few things right even if they fucked up the wider economics.

You're in the UK? My business partners there tell me it's horrendous and that for quality care you need a private plan. You may feel differently and that's fine, but the US government can't deliver a letter, there's no way they can manage the health needs of 300+ million people.

As time goes on I expect health to change in the former Yugoslavia as the young weren't alive when the education and health campaigns were in effect. Not to mention now they have more money and access to imported goods so no longer is the local diet mostly fruits, vegetables, and grains with only the odd bit of locally produced meat (mostly fish, chicken, with the odd bit of pork as beef was in short supply). There should be some lasting effect from so many trained medical people as well as cities laid out to be pedestrian and bike centric but over time I expect them to converge on western dietary norms. That isn't necessarily better health wise.

I am in California though I am a US/UK dual national by birth. Also, you are simply misinformed both about the quality of healthcare delivered by the NHS and by the US's supposedly inability to do the same.

The US used to be famous for its can do attitude and making the impossible possible yet here we have a very easy thing to do (it just takes political will) yet all the Conservatives say "we can't, it is impossible" which is all untrue And what they really are trying to say is "I do not want to". I will leave it for others to guess why they do not want to but it mostly certainly is not for the reasons they say in public.

My UK business partners think the NHS is the single best thing that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has ever done.

I'll grant that you probably know more about the NHS than I do. I'm not misinformed about the latter. The US Government cannot even care for veterans properly. Why are you so confident that they can manage so many more individuals health care?

I'd be willing to wager that they have private plan for themselves.

I have VA Health Insurance and have found it to be excellent. There is a reason users of the VA are the single most satisfied of any insurance provider in the country. As for the underfunding, that again is a political problem mostly due to Republicans, funding got way better under Obama though Republicans had to be publicly named and shamed to stop their budget attacks on the VA.

Hell, you want to take about efficiency? Medicare and the VA are not only the two providers people are most happy with they are also the two cheapest hen it comes to providing quality care. Way cheaper, less than half the cost with everything totaled up, than private companies.

This is how the countries with universal care usually cost half as much as the US pays. It is simply more efficient.

Cool. How much are you willing to pay me? I already know the outcome of this wager.

I am willing to bet they do not given that less than 8% of people in the UK have supplimental private insurance and that the vaaaaaassssssstttttt majority of that is for foreign travel. Over 92% agree they are getting really good quality care at a really low price compared to places like the US so they just do not feel the need. Seriously, the nonsense blogs you have been reading truly are nonsense. The NHS is a very high quality first world health provider.

The NHS is one I always hear as being a clusterfuck, but I know Async has mentioned the French model of government plans and private as working quite well.

Mind you, we also live in San Diego, which has a big veteran population and therefore gets a bigger share of support. The majority of my friends elsewhere haven't had the same experience, especially not those in rural areas.

If you want a nice garden, you have to weed and water it properly. Etc. A universal health-care system is no different.

It was created by Labour after WWII and maintained by succeeding governments whether Labour or Tory.

Then along came Margaret Thatcher. She and later governments have had a deliberate policy of undermining the NHS. Probably so they can say "See? It doesn't work properly."
If you want your car to go, better maintain it and keep gas in the tank.

From what I've heard, nothing could be less efficient than the US system.
So Single Payer would just have to simplify things.

Also, if you're the sole purchaser in the market-place, guess what: You have incredible powers of price moderation.
That is another reason that single-payer is less expensive.

The best fucking climate in all of Europe, and an economy that benefits both from having been the beneficiary of Yugoslavia's unequal distribution of wealth, and from being the part of it that was quickest to reattach to the West, not least because of its border with Italy.

Oh, stop being daft. Not even Thatcher would touch the NHS because any party which did so would automatically, without question, be dead meat at the ballot box. Now, she did curb spending increases which did cause problems years down the road (especially after she had left office) but in terms of actually cuts? Nope, did not happen.

While appreciating the political risks, Thatcher was the first to raise the topic in public debate. (Rome wasn't wrecked in a day.)
Of course, she paid for the NHS with proceeds from North Sea Oil, in the same way she paid for skyrocketing unemployment-insurance payments, etc.

Any Brits around this place? Has there, or has there not, been a steady erosion of the NHS under Major, Blair and, especially, Cameron?
And did Thatcher get the ball rolling or not?

The salient point here is that in countries with universal healthcare, the rich can still get premium private services if they so choose. But the poor are still covered for most things. And the country saves money relative to what the US spends. It's win-win-win.

And if we're concerned about the federal government not managing a universal system well, we could look to a model like Canada's. Each province administers its own plans, merely following the federal government's guidelines. The doctors and hospitals themselves remain private entities.

I saw an interesting article a couple of days ago which talked about the fact that during WWII the health of some populations actually increased due to rationing and access to some food staples resulting in people eating more varied diets out of necessity.

If we're playing the anecdote game, my cousin died from Leukemia a few years ago after spending over a decade having it treated on the NHS, receiving good quality care the entire time and not bankrupting her parents.

I friend of mine has spent more of his life living with HIV than without it. He's 54. As that qualifies as disability, his medications and doctor care are covered.

Leaves him time to take care of his 80 something year old mother... ironically, it's probably cheaper for the province to support him supporting her than to have just let him die untreated or on the streets in 1992.