Average size. Sure, you’ve got a few big ones, but you’ve got many more small ones. There are only 4 Western European countries larger than CA: Germany, Italy, The UK and France. Then you have Spain, Portugal, Ireland, The Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Austria, Switzerland. And a few more even smaller.
It’s not my logic. I’m just responding to the earlier post that average life expectancy was somehow a good measure of healthcare. Maybe it is, and maybe it isn’t.
Personally I don’t think it is meaningful as a metric by itself. Of more importance is how many people are covered, to what degree are they covered, the cost of a relevant “shopping basket” of healthcare needs and so on. I think the qualitative measures are more important but it is very difficult to put a figure on “how scared are you of getting ill?” or how much does access to healthcare affect your mental wellbeing?"
Again, I liken it to emergency services, you know they are there if you need them and they are free at the point of delivery, How much would we be stressed if we knew asking the police to track down our missing children was going to cost us $2 million?
Spain has a larger population than California, actually. By quite a bit.
In my experience, it always boils down to American Exceptionalism: UHC works everywhere except America.
I honestly don’t understand the die-hard defense of a system that’s clearly broken. If our system were so much better than UHC, it would be obvious. But at best it can be argued that it’s not as bad as it looks, which seems like a remarkably bad excuse to stick with what we’ve got. I guess the insurance industry has really good marketers and lobbyists (and some pretty good politicians in their pocket).
I don’t think so. There can be no other definition of “First World” other than an economic one. False equivalence, anyone?
Really? So the *first and original definition *can’t be used?:rolleyes:
"The concept of the First World first originated during the Cold War, where it was used to describe countries that were aligned with the United States."
It can be used, but it’s kind of stupid to use it as if that were a contemporary meaning. Since the Cold War ended (did you notice? It was in all the papers), that usage has fallen away except in historical discussions of the Cold War itself. The contemporary usage is exclusively socio-economic.
Parallel example: I could say that Barack Obama seems like a very gay man. You could return that he has a wife and children and a heterosexual identity, but I would explain that of course I meant his attitude: he is a happy man. I could insist that that was the first and original definition of the word, but I don’t think that would make my argument stronger.
True, but nobody agrees on what nations are now "First World’.
wiki " Today, the First World is slightly outdated and has no official definition, however it is generally thought of as the capitalist, industrial, developed countries that aligned with the United States after World War II." italics mine.
So it’s very easy to pick and choose what nations are or are not “First World” (and why isn’t Turkey a 1st World nation? And Hong Kong?) in order to prove a point that the US the only 1st world nation that lacks UHC. You simply exclude whatever nations other than the USA that don’t have UHC, and viola- the US the only 1st world nation that lacks UHC!:eek::eek::eek:
huzzah!
You’re right. My bad. But it still doesn’t change the equation.
And for those who object to the us of CA, you can look at Minnesota or North Dakota as states with hight life expectancy rates that are relatively small and not in the same league, economically, as CA.
Spain doesn’t currently have a single-payer system, though; UHC yes, single-payer not quite. Since the two often get commingled in these discussions, I thought I’d point it out.
We’ve gone from single-payer to a distributed system where the tax paying for UHC is single-collector but gets distributed to almost 20 different payers as a function of how many people are using the system in each region; getting access to non-emergency healthcare when you’re outside your home region can go from the completely straightforward (just call the appointments number, mention you’re off-region and receive an appointment to the doctor who handles off-region) to the you better not be in a hurry (must request a doctor beforehand, which takes about a month) to “no non-emergency for off-region”.
Yeah I don’t think it’s reasonable to compare against california; the wealthiest state.
I’m having difficult finding a PPP stat for california, but its nominal GDP would currently make it the world’s eighth biggest economy with a population that is only 59th. That implies a very high PPP.
If you’re going to use that state, I suggest that life expectancy figures for particularly wealthy regions of Germany or Norway say, should be compared.