-
This is the root of the greatest fallacy about the American Healthcare system, and Capitalism in general; you have the choice to appoint whichever 'health provider' you like within a competitive market, therefore quality must be ensured by that dynamic. Almost without fail, it's the exact opposite.
🅑🅐🅣🅣-
Not sure how it's the root, but anyway...
Ultimately the US is one of the most responsive systems in the world. IMO that is a factor in this scenario, as are bed numbers.
Cost of delivery, suicide inducing bureaucracy, inequity of outcome are great for our collective schadenfreude but it doesn't mean that there aren't areas where the US is likely to be better placed that the UK. A much bigger advantage a national health service has over private is the ability to roll out an identical approach.
-
And whilst its generally a problem with things like telecoms, where even though there is theoretical competition, you are likely to only be served by one provider so they have a de-facto monopoly, with healthcare you also have the issue that Hospitals have to have agreements with the insurers also so if your local doesn't deal with your insurers then you're SOL as far as I can tell
hugo7
branwen
Although only a very small number of people in the US don't have health insurance, unsurprisingly a good chunk of those without it are young people and non-citizens.
Also I'm going to go out on a limb and say for all it's faults ime the generally better quality of healthcare, particularly in diagnostics, coupled with population density means the US will fair better than Europe.