Canadians are outliving Americans with Cystic Fibrosis, in some cases, by as much as a decade

[Pemalite]

sc94597 said:

One size fits all health-care funding erodes health-care quality. The only national system in your infographic is the NHS in the U.K, and it falls behind France, The Netherlands, Switzerland, and other countries with multi-payer systems in many ways, such as wait-times, and speciality care. All of the other countries in that infographic have devolved (non-national) systems with a strong dependence on suplementary private care, or private insurance as their main mechanism.

Australia has a national system as it's primary system. Healthcare is provided to all. Free. (Well. Ignoring how it's paid via taxation.)

You are right it is multi-payer. But how the Australian system works is if you are over a certain Tax threshold you are given a choice.
You either contribute extra into the Health Care system via the Medicare levy... Or you get Private insurance.

Which is why I have been an advocate over mixed systems. It's poven to work.

But the point still stands, the USA is still paying more per capita for Health and it's overall results are inferior to other nations. The statistics don't lie.

"A Nations Greatness is measured by how it treats it's weakest, most vulnerable members". - On that basis alone the USA flops.

sc94597 said:

Diseconomies of scale  affect all goods. An example of this in the health-care industry is how the British government has yet to approve P.R.E.P as a covered drug because the potential population is a minority. In a mixed non-nationalized system, like in the United States, one can easily find a company which will cover P.R.E.P. The larger the population, the more likely minority groups with specific health-concerns or conditions will be ignored and unhappy. That is why countries with single-payer tend to either be small, or devolve the funding so that the priorities match the wants of their populations more directly. It is also why private care is promoted in mixed systems (Germany, Japan, France) and mostly private systems (the Netherlands, Switzerland.)

To be fair Prep was denied on the Australian PBS scheme because of cost issues, but Truvada is re-submitting it's drug again for evaluation.
That doesn't mean you can't buy the drug, it's just not going to be heavily subsidised.

But the question begs, will the USA ever have it subsidised for all of it's population?

sc94597 said:

Costs aren't the be all, end all when certain populations are ignored. Nationalized systems are good at providing general care that everybody can make use of, but suck at providing to specialized needs, and that is why you need a strong private or devolved system to either replace or complement it.

Hence why most countries with single-payer don't have nationalized systems, but develoved systems.

Which is why I have been an advocate for mixed public/private systems with a primary emphasis on public healthcare.
The USA is almost the reverse of that.

sc94597 said:

One last thing, you can't compare costs on a per-capita basis without considering so many other lurking variables. One to one regressions don't work here, because this is not a single-variable system. When all variables are considered, the argument is less statistically signficant.

Combining "multiple large countries" is doesn't work either, because they are all different with different systems, and the distribution and spending is happening in each country (not for all of them). That is the entire point of economies of scales and diseconomies of scales. Scale factors affect costs.

Have to disagree with here. Gauging things on a per-capita basis is an important metric, it's not the only tool you have either.