The latest of the NEF Mythbusters has Andrew Simms talking about health care costs.
He uses this chart:
And then says that if we have markets in the NHS then we will inevitably move out to the US position.
Hmm. Actually, as you can see, the NHS is below that trend line. We\’ve a worse money/lifespan trade off than the average. Which means that the NHS is, for whatever reason, less efficient than the average system (and that average does indeed include that horrendous outlier of the US).
Which means that perhaps we might want to think about which systems provide better than average outcomes and try to copy them?
Roughly the same information presented in another manner:
Now, eyeballing that we can see that Spain has a better trade off than the NHS does. Australia and Sweden do. New Zealand does.
Hmm. Anything we can say about the health care systems in those countries? Could it be that they all have internal markets in them? A mixture of state, charitable, for profit private providers?
Would that be why Andrew Simms hasn\’t bothered to label most of the countries that are above average in his chart? Because, you know, he\’s a lying scumbag?
And if we are to take efficiency of health care spending as being our guide, shouldn\’t we thus be copying Singapore? Which, roughly speaking, tells you to deal with your own fucking health care out of your savings. Only if you\’ve got something seriously wrong, cancer, been scraped up off the road after a car tramples you, that sort of thing, does the government then pay for you.
But no, obviously better to scare the bejabbers out of everyone by lying to them.
Well done Mr. Simms, well done.