Taiwan’s single-payer success story — and its lessons for America

[berg80]

In the 1990s, Taiwan did what has long been considered impossible in the US: The island of 24 million people took a fractured and inequitable health care system and transformed it into something as close to Sen. Bernie Sanders’s vision of Medicare-for-all as anything in the world.

I came here last October to learn what it takes to set up and sustain such a system. It’s one of several stops around the globe that Vox made this past fall, in an effort to learn how other countries tried to achieve universal and affordable health care. Our project, Everybody Covered, was made possible by a grant from The Commonwealth Fund.

There’s clearly a need for lessons. Compared to the rest of the developed world, America spends more money on health care and produces worse outcomes. By one advanced metric — mortality for causes that should be avoidable with accessible, high-quality health care — the United States ranked last among the G7 countries in 2016. America’s infant mortality rate is almost double that of some of its peers. Nearly one in 10 Americans lack insurance. People go bankrupt over medical bills. Yet Americans still spend about twice as much money on health care per capita as the average comparable country.

No health care system is perfect. But most of America’s economic peers have figured out a way to deliver truly universal coverage and quality care. The United States has not.

Taiwan’s single-payer success story — and its lessons for America

The US has not, but it needs to or we will never get health care cost inflation under control.

 

[dblack]

In the 1990s, Taiwan did what has long been considered impossible in the US

I'm quite proud that such a power grab is considered impossible in the US. I hope that holds.

 

[Rambunctious]

You don't go bankrupt in Tawan's single payer healthcare system and you don't get treated for life threatening Diseases & Conditions unless some government tool signs off on it and gives the doctor the go ahead...do you want to live under a medical system that plays the odds with your life?...that decides if the treatment will be cost effective or not?...in Tawan the sicker you are the less treatment you can expect...that is why the people give in and let the government tell them how to live how many offspring they can have and what to eat and when to exercise etc etc etc....

No thanks....

 

[DGS49]

(1) The Federal Government is PROHIBITED by the Tenth Amendment from getting into the health care business. It astounds me that not one American in ten understands the significance of Chief Justice Roberts deeming the penalty for not having insurance under ACA to be a TAX. (Even though the Obama Administration insisted that it was NOT a tax!) If he had not done so, the entire law would have been tossed out as unconstitutional.

(2) The entire medical infrastructure in the U.S. has been created and operated under a highly-regulated but "private" system of healthcare, funded mainly by insurance and government handouts. To propose something as different as, "single payer," or "Medicare for all" would involve such massive changes to so many segments of the economy that NO ONE can predict the results. At the very least, millions would be out of work - the people whose jobs are basically pushing paper around to justify and approve medical expenditures. And imagine all the millions of healthcare providers - led by doctors and nurses - who would REFUSE to have their compensation reduced, simply because of a government takeover of healthcare. The fraud and waste in this new System would be breathtaking.

(3) as for the cost of a new Regime to individuals, NOBODY HAS ANY IDEA what it would be. We are already paying doctor bills and paying for health insurance either directly or through our employers. A payroll tax of 10% seems reasonable, but I suspect a lot of people are already paying that much.

(4) to have an opinion on "socialized medicine" and whether it would work in the U.S. is meaningless without a comprehensive study of what we have and how it would change.

Anybody remember "Hillary-Care?"

 

[harmonica]

In the 1990s, Taiwan did what has long been considered impossible in the US: The island of 24 million people took a fractured and inequitable health care system and transformed it into something as close to Sen. Bernie Sanders’s vision of Medicare-for-all as anything in the world.

I came here last October to learn what it takes to set up and sustain such a system. It’s one of several stops around the globe that Vox made this past fall, in an effort to learn how other countries tried to achieve universal and affordable health care. Our project, Everybody Covered, was made possible by a grant from The Commonwealth Fund.

There’s clearly a need for lessons. Compared to the rest of the developed world, America spends more money on health care and produces worse outcomes. By one advanced metric — mortality for causes that should be avoidable with accessible, high-quality health care — the United States ranked last among the G7 countries in 2016. America’s infant mortality rate is almost double that of some of its peers. Nearly one in 10 Americans lack insurance. People go bankrupt over medical bills. Yet Americans still spend about twice as much money on health care per capita as the average comparable country.

No health care system is perfect. But most of America’s economic peers have figured out a way to deliver truly universal coverage and quality care. The United States has not.

Taiwan’s single-payer success story — and its lessons for America

The US has not, but it needs to or we will never get health care cost inflation under control.

big problem with your comparison--US population is over TEN times Taiwan's
..same with many of the other countries
...we have hundreds of thousands of immigrants each YEAR
..we have racial diversity
--not even close to comparable

 

[there4eyeM]

Allowing a part of society's population to suffer unnecessarily can hardly be called civilized. With all the vast treasure spent on "defense", we have to ask what is being defended.

 

[dblack]

Allowing a part of society's population to suffer unnecessarily can hardly be called civilized.

Allowing?