Whether it's the never-ending debate on funding for the U.K.’s National Health Service...
Save our NHS!
...or repeated attempts to repeal Obamacare.
Our lives are on the line!
Health care remains the most divisive issue in politics.
Every country across the globe has a different system to access health care.
For many developing countries, they operate the out of pocket model,
where health care is paid for at point of use with no centralized funding system.
At the opposite end of the scale is government-run universal health care,
used by the U.K.’s National Health Service since 1948.
This leaflet is coming through your letterbox one day soon.
Financed through taxes and compulsory national insurance contributions,
it’s guided by the principle that health care is free to all at the point of delivery.
It’s this single-payer health care system, which is the fundamental idea
of Senator Bernie Sanders’ new bill ‘Medicare for All.’
The function of a rational health care system is to provide quality care to all in a cost effective way.
A tax-funded health insurance plan but with privately-operated hospitals,
providing coverage to 323 million Americans.
How the tax funding would work is still not clear however.
Support for the bill is growing amongst Democrats but with the recent failure of Vermont’s
ambitious single-payer health care plan and the threat of two million administrative job losses,
Sanders’ plan is unlikely to pass in Congress.
According to Sanders, the bill’s opposition is the pharmaceutical industry,
the insurance companies, Wall Street and the Republican party.
The current profit-driven health care system fits in with conservative ideals of small government
and has resulted in the country becoming the leader in new treatments
and technologies for conditions such as cancer.
But the many obstacles and high costs of these treatments means that
roughly 30 million uninsured Americans won't be able to access them.
And the U.S. is still spending more on health care than any other country in the world.
But is universal health care the answer?
President Truman thought so.
He said that, "Every American should have the right to adequate medical care
and to adequate protection from the economic threat of sickness."
He is against federal action in the field of health.
A single-payer system such as the U.K.’s NHS does just that,
while also costing less than half of what health care costs in the U.S.
So, if it’s cheaper and everyone gets coverage, why do many conservatives argue against it?
Because the NHS is under serious strain.
A recent report by the OECD found that the current quality of care within the NHS is uneven
and continues to struggle to keep pace with many other countries.
Many analysts believe it needs more funding, a policy that will involve raising taxes,
something most governments would like to avoid.
So is there a way of ensuring universal coverage without compromising on quality of care at an affordable price?
The answer may be a hybrid, multi-payer, health care system used by a number of countries including France,
which the World Health Organization ranked as the number one health care system in the world in 2000.
More recent research among OECD countries found that France has the fewest number of deaths
that could have been avoided by better health care.
The country uses a private, non-profit social insurance model.
Sounds complicated. Here’s how it works.
The entire French population has their health insurance automatically deducted from their pay.
For people on low or no income, their health care is subsidized through taxes, meaning everyone is covered.
But there’s a catch.
Unless you have a long-term condition, the system only covers 70% of your medical costs.
This means you pay a small fee when you have a consultation but much of the country has
additional private insurance to cover this amount.
Many analysts argue this small fee results in high standards of care.
It reduces waiting times and means patients have the freedom to choose
where they receive their health care services.
It also costs 11% of the country’s GDP and has more beds and doctors per 1,000 people
as well as longer life expectancies than both the U.S. and the U.K.
The system does have its critics.
Some French employers believe the funding of health care is a tax on jobs.
So why aren’t the U.S. and the U.K. adopting similar models?
One reason may be that satisfaction levels in the U.S. and U.K.’s health care systems
still remain above 60% and therefore any attempt to change them would be a political gamble.
But those levels are down from 2014 and may continue to decline with many American citizens still uninsured
and NHS waiting times the worst for a decade.
Public opinion may force changes but finding the best way to deliver high quality
health care for everyone won’t be easy or pain-free.
Hi everyone, Tom here.
Thanks very much for watching.
If you like what you saw, check out more of our videos.
And don't forget to subscribe.