USA GOP Health-care bill withdrawn; Coping with astronomical costs of 21st century medical care is major social and political problem

Last updated on 28th March 2017

GOP health-care bill: House Republican leaders abruptly pull their rewrite of the nation’s health-care law, https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/house-leaders-prepare-to-vote-friday-on-health-care-reform/2017/03/24/736f1cd6-1081-11e7-9d5a-a83e627dc120_story.html, March 24th 2017

Small extract from it:

In an interview with The Washington Post, Trump deflected any responsibility for the setback and instead blamed Democrats. “We couldn’t get one Democratic vote,” he said.

“I don’t blame Paul,” Trump added, referring to Ryan.

Trump said he would not ask Republican leaders to reintroduce the legislation in the coming weeks, and congressional leaders made clear that the bill — known as the American Health Care Act — was dead.
--- end extract ---

Ravi: Medical science has made extraordinary progress in saving and extending human lives, and also improving the quality of human life, over the past few decades. But along with that has come astronomical costs for medical care.

How to cope with astronomical costs of medical care in the 21st century seems to have become one of the, if not the, major social and political problem(s) in many countries in the world, both materially developed countries like the USA and materially developing countries like India.
===============================================================

Given below is an edited exchange on this post's above contents, that I had with a correspondent who was OK with public sharing of it.

Correspondent (C) wrote:
...
Actually, health care can be sustainable if you do it anywhere near right. Obamacare is pretty good. It seems to work reasonably ...

Healthcare works elsewhere. It can be affordable. I note that the Danish system, though not perfect, of course, is universal and comprehensive and the Danish state and nation run surpluses. Just yesterday, the Danish national bank announced that they had paid off all loans in foreign currencies and would in the foreseeable future borrow only in kroner.
---

I, (Ravi) (R) responded to last paragraph of above comment:
Great to know that. I think capitalist democracy countries need to carefully study AND PUBLICIZE success stories of universal healthcare (in capitalist democracies). I am sure some people in India would have done such studies and written articles on it. But those articles do not make it, at least in a prominent way, to mainstream media in India. Also India's govt. healthcare which is typically used by only those who cannot afford private healthcare, seems to have tried to follow communist country models. This situation of both a large govt. healthcare system and a large private healthcare system may be making India's problems way more complex than some countries of the Western world.

BTW, especially over the past decade or so, private health insurance to cover costs of private healthcare system in India, has become a big market which, I think, caters to primarily upper middle class, rich class and employees in some companies. The poor and lower middle class typically do not have any health insurance (unless they are employees of some companies). But many public sector employees (like Indian railways where my father was employed) have access to (free) hospital services provided by their public sector orgn.'s hospitals. So Indian Railways has its own hospitals.
---

C wrote:
That's a bit like the English system. The Danish healthcare system differs in an important way. This is how it was a few years ago, but it might of course have changed:  In England, if you want a pair of glasses, you can get one from a small selection of cheap, ugly glasses from the national health service or you can go private and buy yourself a nice pair at full price. In Denmark, you can get a pair of basic glasses free, but if you want better, you only pay the difference in price (in the same private store that sells all kinds of glasses). Thus the public and private systems are not distinct: "private" is simply an increment over "public". In this way someone "going private" does not deprive the public system of resources.
---

R wrote:
Yes, I think the Indian govt. health system would have similarities with the English one. Of course, the NHS of England is way, way superior to Indian govt. health system in terms of quality of health care, I believe. But the overall model from a govt. financing point of view, seems to be similar. [I should also say that Indian govt. health care system does have some committed and good medical staff. My sister served perhaps for around three decades with Mumbai's govt. healthcare system as a doctor, taking voluntary retirement when she had risen to a senior administrator post in a medium sized govt. hospital. She provided committed service as did some of her doctor colleagues. But, especially in semi-urban and rural India, there are some terrible cases of negligence, corruption and bad healthcare in Indian govt. healthcare system.]
...
[About the Danish system:]
Interesting system which seems fair to taxpayers! Good example as I think I got it quite easily. The tax payer buying a more expensive pair of glasses gets the discount of the price of the basic glasses. So he/she does not lose out from benefiting from the public health services that his/her taxes support. In India (and in England going by what you wrote), the tax payer going to the private healthcare system does not get any benefit of the public healthcare system that his/her taxes are paying for!

I would like to share this exchange ... on my public post. Do you think it would be OK if I share your comments ...?
---

C wrote:
If you want to share, I should first check if it is still so. The eye glasses example is one that I have personally experienced both ways, but it was years ago. The principle is simple, though.
---

R wrote:
[About "first check if it is still so" part:]
That would need an investment of time, which could turn out to be significant. I prefer to take the route of clearly stating that this was how it was some years ago, and leave it to the reader, if he/she wants to, to confirm whether the situation is the same now. Are you OK with me taking that route?

[About eye glasses example:]
Interesting that it was your personal experience. In my now over five year career (free activity as in not paid activity) as a blogger and then Facebook public posts writer (social media writer), what I found is that personal experience conveyed clearly (and truthfully, of course), even if the language is straight-forward and not flowery, strikes a chord in many readers!
---

C wrote:
[About my question, "Are you OK with me taking that route?"]
OK
---
==============================================================

Readers may want to read my related post, Why USA Republicans failed to pass (withdrew) Healthcare bill in House of Representatives, http://ravisiyermisc.blogspot.in/2017/03/why-usa-republicans-failed-to-pass.html, dated 27th March 2017

[I thank washingtonpost.com and have presumed that they will not have any objections to me sharing the above small extract from their website on this post which is freely viewable by all, and does not have any financial profit motive whatsoever.]