If you don’t get cancer, where would you rather live? Life expectancy is significantly higher in Europe for lower average cost of medical care. There’s not necessarily a conflict between checkups and chemo, and surely some of the difference is due to population-level differences in poverty, diet, and lifestyle. But it’s worth remembering that it can be rational to trade slightly worse specialty care for better general care.
The OECD reports numbers that include public expenditures. I'm not sure where I'd even look to find the precise methodology, but at some point you have to trust that the experts know what they're doing and are reasonably impartial. And sure, Sweden's overall tax rate is probably a lot higher, but they are providing a lot more services than the US government with that money beyond just healthcare. So the choice probably isn't between ~30% tax rate with private healthcare[2] and ~60% tax rate with public healthcare; even if the full ~$10,000 health care expenditures per capita were spent on taxes instead, that's only about a 17 percentage point increase on the per capita income of $60k.
I think you misunderstand the statement. I wasn't referencing the comparison of the tax costs of different public healthcare systems. But while we're on that subject, I'm willing to bet that your VA comparison isn't per capita, or placed against GDP, rendering it useless.
What I was referencing was the per capita or per household total cost of healthcare. The comparisons that say western countries with universal healthcare have "lower costs" generally omit the increased tax burden.
If I make $100k a year, for example, and pay ~30% in taxes, but also pay ~$15k a year for total family medical expenses, including premiums, I'm still making out better than if I pay ~60% in taxes, but get "free" healthcare.
> As a percentage of GDP, the UK spent less on healthcare than USA, Japan, France and Germany and a similar percentage to Canada. The USA spent the most on healthcare as a percentage of GDP at 16.6%.
If you exclude private insurance the US still pays a lot, at about 8.2%
The US has by far the largest spend per capita, yet has average life expectancy.
You misinterpret or spin the data from your link. Look again and you'll see that, as far as compulsory spending goes the US and UK spend roughly the same percentage of GDP on "healthcare". What is "healthcare" as defined in this PR piece from the UK government? Where do factors like average wait time to see a specialist or have surgery weigh in?
I could take those same numbers and say, "The United States does a better job of assisting it's poorer citizens into the highest quality healthcare in the world, all while allowing all its people the complete freedom to control their own health outcomes."
For the record, I'm not a health libertarian, but I'd sure as hell take it over health authoritarianism, and the UK government proved that's what they have last week.
> Look again and you'll see that, as far as compulsory spending goes the US and UK spend roughly the same percentage of GDP on "healthcare"
Yes, that's the point. The US government spends more on healthcare, but that huge spend doesn't cover the whole population.
> "The United States does a better job of assisting it's poorer citizens into the highest quality healthcare in the world,
Why does the US have such poor mortality figures if health care is so good and if everyone can access it?
> but I'd sure as hell take it over health authoritarianism, and the UK government proved that's what they have last week.
In the US cases of medical futility the doctors announce their plan to remove life support and if the parents disagree they have to go to court to stop it happening.
In the UK the doctors need to get the agreement of the parents, and if the parents don't agree the doctors have to go to court. In that court process the family can get legal aid (if they meet the financial test) - Alfie Evan's parents went through 7 legal firms, and they had expert counsel of a well respected silk and two juniors. But also Alfie had his own legal representation.
Alfie Evans had 16 months of excellent health care, followed by robust legal protection to make sure his best interests were looked after. His family are poor. He wouldn't have got anything like this in the US.
> But also Alfie had his own legal representation.
What?! How does an infant/toddler receive legal representation arguing for the plug to be pulled, outside of the wishes of his parents?! That is the very definition of authoritarianism.
> He wouldn't have got anything like this in the US.
Absolute nonsense spread by someone who has no knowledge of the American system. A child like Alfie is given free medical care from one of many charity hospitals with some of the best doctors in the world, and other charities house the family, for no cost, during treatment. You know, like the Vatican offered, and the parents accepted, but apparently you're government decided it was time for Alfie to die.
> How does an infant/toddler receive legal representation arguing for the plug to be pulled, outside of the wishes of his parents?!
The child is not property. The child is a human, and has human rights. Those rights are protected. The child has his own independent legal representation to look after its best interests.
This system has been tested by international courts -in Europe- and they've found it works to protect the rights of the child.
> You know, like the Vatican offered,
No. The vatican offered the same end of life care he was getting, with the additional burden of a long difficult journey.
> A child like Alfie is given free medical care from one of many charity hospitals
I've already linked a page in this thread that shows this to be false.
You keep saying "government", but the UK government wasn't involved in any of the cases (apart from the EU ones).
> The child is not property. The child is a human, and has human rights. Those rights are protected. The child has his own independent legal representation to look after its best interests.
How humane of your government to decide that a toddler must starve to death.
Have you ever had a naso-gastric tube fitted? It's not pleasant. Doing this in order to prolong life when the case is medically futile is cruel.
Also, it's far better that the hospital has to go to the courts to get permission to do this than the situation in the US: the doctors announce their plan and the parents then have to go to court to stop it happening.
> What?! How does an infant/toddler receive legal representation arguing for the plug to be pulled, outside of the wishes of his parents?! That is the very definition of authoritarianism.
So, arguing the doctors' point of view of a terminally ill child's best interests is "authoritarianism", and arguing the parents' point of view is not? OK.
Simple answer to your question: It is for _doctors_ to assess if there is any realistic hope of recovery from an illness and if not, when palliative care is the best option. They're not perfect but it's the best that we have.
Terminal illness happens to us all eventually, you have to face that. It happens to children too sometimes, you have to face that too.
The higher taxes aren't there to cover healthcare costs though. The amount you pay in taxes for universal healthcare are lower than what you pay in the US for non universal public healthcare that you don't even use.
Also, fwiw, what I’m reading (e.g. https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2018/01/30/5819148...) suggests that US cancer survival is better than the rest of the developed world, but not significantly so.