Can Nationalized Healthcare in the United States Work?

The concept of nationalized healthcare has gained significant traction, particularly in the United States, where various models of healthcare systems are employed. Drawing inspiration from the Canadian Provincial single-payer system might seem like a viable solution, but it would require substantial tax increases over a prolonged period. This article explores the complexities and potential solutions for implementing a nationalized healthcare system in the United States, focusing on the challenges and benefits.

Understanding the Canadian Model

The Canadian Provincial single-payer system could theoretically work in the United States, but it requires a fundamental shift in the relationship between the economy and government, ending pork spending associated with the healthcare system framework. Despite its potential, this model would necessitate a significant increase in taxes, making it a less practical solution in the current economic climate.

The Struggle with Tax-funded Models

The United States currently utilizes various tax-funded healthcare models, each with its own strengths and weaknesses. When evaluated separately, the most expensive and least efficient models are those that rely heavily on tax funding for a significant portion of the population. On the other hand, the most cost-effective and efficient system involves households having insurance and paying for preventative care at the point of service.

However, this statement holds true only if individuals start using such a system during their 20s. Preventative care, which is crucial for maintaining overall health, costs an average of $87,000 over an 80-year lifespan. If people don't invest in this care, the average out-of-pocket expense could skyrocket to over $400,000, increasing by roughly $4,000 annually. Therefore, it is essential to have insurance coverage and make preventative care investments.

Challenges and Solutions for Nationalized Healthcare

Visioning a perfect Medicare for All system that eliminates networks, prior authorizations, and lifetime benefit caps is an ideal but unattainable goal in the current political and economic landscape. Such a system would disadvantage vulnerable populations, especially those who require significant medical attention, including premature infants and the elderly with dementia. In reality, the system would only be functional for the wealthy, who could afford to bypass it.

A more feasible approach would be to emulate the structure of Medicare, which adjusts premiums based on individual income. For instance, individuals earning less than $97,000 per year pay $163 monthly, with the cost increasing proportionally for higher earners. If Medicare were to cover everyone, this income-based adjustment would be crucial to ensure affordability.

Another critical challenge is the cost of childcare, which would be a significant burden for many families. Children could be added to their parents' policy, simplifying the process. However, to avoid overwhelming the system, eligibility could be phased in, such as extending Medicare coverage to individuals aged 60 to 65 in the first year, then to 55 to 59 in the subsequent year. This phased approach would allow the system to gradually adapt to increased demand.

Alternatively, allowing each state to develop its own system could be a more decentralized and manageable solution. Considering that Canada's healthcare system is provincially managed, with recommendations for supplemental medical insurance when traveling across provinces, a similar model in the United States could ensure that healthcare remains accessible and affordable for all.

Implementing a nationalized healthcare system in the United States is a complex issue that requires careful consideration of economic, political, and social factors. While the theoretical benefits of such a system are tempting, practical challenges must be addressed to ensure its success and accessibility to all citizens.