As an Australian interested in the debate in the US over healthcare I'm confused about something. In the papers when I read about the debate over healthcare it's always presented as single payer vs private cover, ie an either/or situation.
But in Australia we have both: on the one hand we have Medicare which is universal coverage for all and everyone pays the Medicare levy which is 2% of their income. However everyone also has the option of taking out private health cover on top of that if they want it. You even get a 30% rebate on your premiums from the government for doing so, because it's said to take some pressure off the public system.
(To be clear the public system is in fact excellent, and there are no crazy long queues to get urgent healthcare or substandard hospital rooms. The last time I was in a public hospital in 2018, I got my own room with colour TV, air conditioning and a bathroom. They are all moving to this model because it reduces the risk of infections spreading ie when patients are isolated. all the best surgeons work in the public sector because it's so big and well-funded. so when you need complex surgery you are usually shifted to a public hospital anyway if you are a private patient.)
So why is it always either/or in the American media? Why do they ask political candidates if they're prepared to abolish private health cover in order to introduce single payer healthcare? why can't the US have both systems side by side like we do here?
0 nhận xét:
Đăng nhận xét