It’s pretty much accepted, from what this poor New Zealander can tell, that the US system of health provision is has problems. Huge amounts of money spent in ways that often result in poor outcomes. It also seems apparent that the public sentitment is towards a “socialising” of health care: wanting intervention by the state to ensure that basic care is available to everyone.
Now it seems that a lot of the debate surrounds whether to move to a universal health care system along the lines of Britain’s NHS. What I was wondering was why there never seems to be discussion of other models of “universal” health care that would, at least to me, seem to be more suited to American governance philosophies.
One in particular that stands out for me is Singapore’s model, summarised at this blog entry:
So why no love for this type of system? It seems to be to be a very effective hybrid of private and public health care, ensuring competition while guaranteeing basic health care. Or am I missing some element that makes it un-reproducable? Does the more authoritarian nature of Signapore’s government somehow make this plan work where it would fail spectacularly in the West?