My wife did this last year. Out of an abundance of caution they checked in her into the hospital for 8 hours and ran a battery of tests. A full work day and $30k in medical bills later they didn't find anything. By then she felt fine and went home. I'm not faulting the original advice, but medical intervention can be expensive and frustrating.
The USA tells us their model of capitalism is the best. They apply their system to healthcare. It utterly fails to deliver versus "socialist" solutions.
At what point are you guys going to join the dots on this contradiction?
GP didn't say this, though. They said applying the model of American capitalism to healthcare fails to deliver (a reasonable standard of care, I assume). Your assessment seems to largely agree.
Perhaps we interpreted these paragraphs differently because I read it as saying "when are we going to connect the dots and see that capitalism is not the best because it utterly fails in healthcare and thus by extension elsewhere too"
The unrealistic fantasy later capitalists developed as a propaganda to sell capitalism doesn't have those features, but then it also has nothing to do with anything that is, has, or ever could be, realized in the real world.
I'd say, go with what works.
One dispute seems to be over the meaning of the word "access". Some people, like my Libertarian friend, feel that "access" is satisfied if you have the freedom to choose your provider (or none at all) -- but god help you if you don't have any money, because no one should be taxed to pay for others' health care. For many, taxation is viewed as state-enforced theft. (I'm not sure how to argue against that viewpoint.)
Others (like Senator Sanders) believe that "access" means "you can get it" -- and include the ability to afford it in that metric. This is why some people in our country argue that we Should Be making sure that people _get_ their medical costs subsidized by taxes. While it's a tax on all of us, the costs end up being lower, and you don't end up people forgoing routine preventative care because they feel they can't afford it, simply because the chance of them having something catastrophically bad is low.
Many that oppose this point to anecdotes of people who needed Serious Help and could not get to it in time, or flew to the US to get it, rather than in their home country.
The last time I participated in a discussion about this, the best system seemed to be Australian. I'm likely oversimplifying, but basically everyone paid into a national system that covered basic things and normal socialized care, and you also had the freedom to have additional insurance that would cover the things that the national system might not be inclined to give you for various reasons. I liked this idea because it meant that poor people and children all had basic care, and anyone who cared about their freedom to choose their doctors / treatments could do so (at a price). The net price still sounded like it was less than what I pay for my family here in the US for medical care.
The US is a crazy cult for "capitalism" and "free" markets. The problem I have is the absolutism about it. Markets can solve everything. This is the USA position. They force other countries to change to it via the IMF, not content with messing up their own country.
Yet even on a very simple system to model, sports, they have a socialist model. You finish bottom you get the first draft pick. Because when reasoning about a small group of teams it's patently obvious that if you give all the TV rights to the top team, all the draft picks to the top team, you end up with a total mess.
They will probably argue back, "in both cases you're taking something by force," but there are lots of pairs of things that share some traits but not others.
Sharing a trait does not make the two things the same thing (i.e. prison vs kidnapping, again, one is legal and one is not).
> the best system seemed to be Australian
> An important element of the French insurance system is solidarity: the more ill a person becomes, the less they pay.
We all die. The more healthcare technology we invent, the more we can spend. If you are willing to spend unlimited money to save a life, then you will... except that every system finds a way to stop you.
Traditional all-out capitalism stops you when you can't pay. (people also don't WANT to pay with their own money, so costs go down) Some government systems will say "no" to some people, but that isn't too popular. Most common is to say "yes" to everybody, but underfunding means you go on a waiting list and might not make it to the other end of the waiting list. These approaches can be mixed: some procedures for pay, some favored people being able to jump ahead on the waiting list, etc.
Underfunding is a given, because full funding for all the care that people want is impossible. The amount of care desired exceeds the GDP.