I put the word FREE in quotes because no health care is free. By "free", I mean free at the point of sale.
There are three countries I'd like to consider, each with a very different economic model from the other two - you can add your country to the list. [list=1]
- Norway - substantial natural resources of petrochemicals, high taxes but high standard of living, relatively small or even negligible nonproductive underclass, an excellent healthcare system in which money does not change hands between patient and doctor. Is Norway a socialist country? I wouldn't have considered it as such, but I don't know their rates of income tax and the rates of indirect taxation.
- USA - substantial natural resources of oil, grain, fruit/veg., livestock. Relatively low direct taxes compared with most other western countries. The population is polarised between very rich and very poor. No government provided health care to speak of. Health care benefits provided by employers (plans like Blue Cross/Blue Shield) are available to some, but not all, of the nationwide workforce. A substantial nonproductive underclass. High standard of living for those who want it, ie. prepared to work for it. Definitely not a socialist country.
- Britain - substantial oil resources, a substantial nonproductive underclass, taxes which were brought down to sensible levels in the 1980s have gone back up since 1997. Health care has been provided by the National Health Service (NHS) since 1948, instigated by the government of the day to improve the nation's health in the post-war years. As well as NHS care, some employers provide their employees with plans offering private care. Socialist? Certainly not in the Thatcher years. Before that, maybe. Since 1997? I would have to say no.
So which of these countries has the "best" system? The answer isn't obvious. Norway seems to have it made, but high rates of income tax might stick in the craw.
The USA has good hospitals, I am sure. But high costs for those whose plans do not cover the required treatment. For those who have no employment and therefore no health plan, the reality is grim indeed. In Chicago, for example, the last hope for some is the Cook County Hospital, an aberration of medical facilities where the most common cause of complications in pregnancy is gunshot wounds. (source - BBC documentary)
Britain has the NHS. It was a good idea in the beginning, but it is drowning in red tape and administration costs. The hospitals are dirty in some cases. Hygiene standards are questionable. But there is private care available, in first rate hospitals. The socialists hate that. But I feel that if I choose to spend a chunk of my money on private health care, I should not be obstructed in making that choice. Other people might choose to spend £50 a week on cigarettes - that's
their choice.
The NHS isn't all bad. My younger niece lost her hearing at age 5, and then underwent surgery to have a cochlea implant fitted. It was pioneering surgery, and there were many hospital visits. Privately, the surgery plus implant plus processor would have cost £40,000. The NHS paid every penny. One wonders whether any private health plans would have picked up the tab for this.
Three health care models - take your pick.
