Canada has "free" universal healthcare, but to call it a "solved problem" seems pretty naive.
The U.S. per capita spends far more on healthcare than any other OECD country. We don’t get correspondingly better outcomes or coverage. Universal healthcare is a solved problem within the context that every system necessarily involves some sort of rationing since there aren’t enough medical resources in any country to do otherwise.
If you don’t want to use the phrase “solved system” then don’t but don’t pretend the U.S. is any way better other than in anecdotal instances. Below is a source for information on per capita spending for OECD nations. You can easily find information on health our outcomes, life expectancy, teen pregnancies, infant mortality, etc.
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/876d99c3-en/index.html?i...
I’m not sure how your reply has anything to do with what I said.
“Better than the US” is not some hurdle that makes a problem “solved”.
Canada is likely better at snow removal but that doesn’t make it a “solved problem”.
Doesn’t do much for the people disabled from pain on a 3 year wait list for a hip transplant or my buddy’s cousin’s kid who doesn’t get access to the standard of care of CF.
It’s not solved in the least, every country struggles, so using the word “solved” is, as I said, naive.
What goal do you wish to accomplish your pedantic nitpicking? You want to get others to believe that my views on national health policies are naive? You want me to realize that in a strict, mathematical sense of the word saying “solved” is incorrect? These are rhetorical questions because I’m not going to read your response. You clearly don’t know much about policy issues and what it means for a society have essentially “solved” an issue (or have found a decent enough solution that it isn’t a dire problem anymore so that some non pedantic people will say it is solved).
Carry forth Don Quixote on your quest to eradicate incorrect usage of what you think “solved” means.
You claim I don’t know policy without knowing healthcare policy is my day job.
Even given the benefit of the doubt that as an outsider looking in you think it’s solved, but as someone who is elbow deep in it everyday “solved” just sounds naive.
[1] "works" is an interesting point because it isn't clearly defined, and usually means different things to different people.
Ever experience of the system is "unique" - there is this mix of human patient with human provider with finite resources with medical knowledge with time. So there are plenty of examples of long waits, bad service, unfavorable outcomes, even death. It's not hard to cherry pick bad experiences here.
No health system will make everyone live forever. Death comes to us all sooner or late. But universal healthcare works in many places in raising the overall standard of public health, without bankrupting people in the process.
Given that its always spending limited money, and only scales at human rates, its far from perfect. But, at least for some, its better than a "health care level based on your wealth" system.
You have Medicaid for the poor, heavily subsidized Obamacare for the people who don't get it through their employer (hello $100/month plan!) and Medicare for the retired.
I mean my cousin in the US whose kid has cystic fibrosis get better care through Medicaid than our other cousin in Canada who can't even get access to the latest drugs.
https://www.verywellhealth.com/your-assets-magi-and-medicaid...
That $100/month plan will include high deductibles and copays. A weekend visit to an urgent care for a kidney stone will still cost a couple hundred dollars out of pocket.