Government measures outcomes, not results. So, in a universal education system, if every child graduates, the desired result has been achieved. The quality of the education is an ancillary concern, behind every child getting a diploma.

In a universal healthcare system, if every sick person sees (or can make an appointment to see) a doctor, the desired result has been achieved. Curing that person is simply assumed with access to a doctor, so wait times are an ancillary concern, as is the actual competence of the doctor.

The number of providers, not the quality thereof, is the concern when government runs things. This quote is from an abstract of a 1991 research paper on the Soviet Union's centralized and universal healthcare system:

"Even with their greater number of providers, Soviet citizens lag behind Americans in general health status, life expectancy, and infant and maternal mortality. Soviet physicians earn only 70 percent of the salary of the average nonfarm worker in the Soviet Union. Striking disparities in health status and outcomes exist as well among the fifteen Soviet republics."

Think about that the next time a con artist or politician (but I repeat myself) tries to sell you on voting for single payer, universal, or Medicare for All healthcare plans.

The real problem with WHO's definition is that it describes a unicorn. It presumes that doctors and nurses will work, and provide their very best effort for every patient, without expectation of being compensated for their work. Generally we refer to that state of existence as "slavery", but it goes even beyond that -- you'd not only have to enslave doctors and nurses, you'd also have to drug them with some kind of magic pills that keep them happy without effecting their performance.

“What needed to happen here didn't under Obamacare. Healthcare needed to get untied from the workplace. It should have become something we all buy independently as young adults and buy through adulthood for ourselves.”

Having health insurance tied or untied to the workplace was never the problem. The problem is and was a patchwork of state laws dictating what had to be covered in a policy in that state. We have actually regressed. It is now smarter for a large segment of the population to not carry insurance at all and find a cash clinic for the treatment they need. Just like the 1950’s.

After being supplicants at the temple of the Chinese Commie Party, can we just ignore WHO?

Remember, in socialistopias, all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.

Corollary: everyone who advocates for socilistopias believe themselves to be the more equal animals. Many will be quite surprised when they find out they're assigned to be *checks notes* ditch diggers, and not the party elite or even in the nomenklatura.

Many will be quite surprised when they find out they're assigned to be *checks notes* ditch diggers, and not the party elite or even in the nomenklatura. ~ I R A Darth Aggie at March 12, 2020 8:28 AM

Even many of those who are assigned to the party elites or nomenklatura will be surprised at some point. Just ask Trotsky or Rohm or Robespierre how the revolution worked out for them.

Just ask Trotsky or Rohm or Robespierre how the revolution worked out for them.

In which case, better to be a ditch digger. You can always dig the graves for those accused of counter-revolutionary thought.

What is this bit about 'without financial hardship'? Unless you are extremely wealthy, healthcare will either be the most expensive or second most expensive thing you ever purchase/finance. Runs neck and neck with a mortgage.

Yes, this is a unicorn - there's no way everyone can have "access" to "health care" in the same degree.

If you get run over by a combine in Aurora, Nebraska, you're just not going to get to a trauma unit at Emory, Johns Hopkins or Shands.

And you are always going to be a commodity, a farm animal to those running any system where you do not pay.

Yes, you. From your pocket.

That is why there are deductibles and exceptions to current "coverage" plans: to prevent you from using the system's money.

That has to go to people in offices, who do not treat you.

If you want to say how you are treated, you MUST PAY.

Here's how you could actually DO that for the bulk of your problems: a credit model plan.

A lot of people are going to find out that "insurance" plans can go broke if COVID-19 is serious.

"If"?

Health care is already rationed in the U.S. --
rich people get all they want; poor people don't
get any.

The U.S. has one of the worst health care systems
among all the industrialized nations. It spends
the most per capita, has some of the worst
outcomes in terms of life expectancy, infant
mortality, etc., and nearly 30 million of its
citizens don't even have any coverage. Richest
country in the world? We certainly don't act
like it.

I can only conclude that the commenters here
arguing for maintaining that status quo A) are
fortunate enough to have a decent health care
plan; and B) don't give a shit about their fellow
citizens. We'll see how B works out for you if
the COVID-19 situation gets significantly worse.

“The U.S. has one of the worst health care systems
among all the industrialized nations. It spends
the most per capita, has some of the worst
outcomes in terms of life expectancy, infant
mortality, etc., and nearly 30 million of its
citizens don't even have any coverage. Richest
country in the world? We certainly don't act
like it.”

Complete and utter bullshit. Every demographic is America has a longer life expectancy and better health than their ethnic group in their culture/country of origin.

Well, "Another View"... how much of the health care industry should you personally command to combat your sniffles?

It is so easy to spend other people's money. It's not like, you know, those other people earned it.

-----

If fact, let us now move directly to the rationing which must occur whenever something is declared, "free". Which is in fact more valuable - the life of the 55-year-old innovator and head of his research and development company, or that of Billy, being revived from his heroin overdose for the third time this week with Narcan by his overworked local police department?

Magic wands never seem to know about hard choices...

"... nearly 30 million of its
citizens don't even have any coverage."

Well, yes, that sounds bad, but it also means that more than 91% do have coverage.

Are we dead yet?

I still have a few rolls of TP left so if I'm dead somebody scoot over here and nab that stuff before the coroner snags it.

As someone who hasn't had 'coverage' until a few months ago, it isn't that big of a deal. You just pay cash at time of service. It is certainly cheaper than insurance. And it actually works unlike Obamacare.

Lack of 'coverage' isn't lack of care.

"Healthcare needed to get untied from the workplace."

Why? If you believe in personal responsibility, then productive people earn healthcare by demonstrating that their services are worth enough money to get insurance. I can bring enough value to the table to get someone to pay me enough to buy insurance, OR to get them to provide me insurance in a group policy, which is more attractive to the insurer because the employer represents a block of clients likely to have a good distribution of risk, and thus, likely to get a lower premium. Employers compete in the market to get talent - they can do so by offering cash or through benefits like health insurance.

Now, I'm not a big fan of employers pre-spending my compensation, especially when, as someone who doesn't like beer at a company that throws parties so often there's a position dedicated to planning the, I'm forced to leave a few hundred dollars on the table every year in free beer. However, all sorts of studies on what generates employee satisfaction say that I'm an outlier, and, especially with millenials, what I call the "company store" approach to compensation factors gets employers way more bang for the buck than cash. Isn't that just the market doing what it does? Most people value time more than money, so having their employer handle all the complexities of their healthcare probably represents value to them.

"It is now smarter for a large segment of the population to not carry insurance at all and find a cash clinic for the treatment they need. "

Only because, if they injure themselves severely, the government forces hospitals to treat them regardless of the prospect of payment. Let some idiot who opted out of insurance, then cracked his skull skateboarding, be left on the sidewalk to bleed out in front of the ER, and watch how fast all those young healthy people change their tune.
"Many will be quite surprised when they find out they're assigned to be *checks notes* ditch diggers, and not the party elite or even in the nomenklatura."

But....but, I have a master's degree in gender studies!!

"The U.S. has one of the worst health care systems among all the industrialized nations."
That's why those who can choose any system they want, choose to fly over all those single payer countries to get to American hospitals when they are seriously ill. Your statement suffers from the same illogic as saying that a Yugo is a better car than a Rolls Royce because not everyone can afford a Rolls Royce.