Friday’s edition of The Times contains an opinion by Jay Ambrose writing that the proposed “Medicare For All” plan is a “doozy” that will result in a “real disaster.”
To sum up his position, the nation simply cannot afford to provide health care for all of our citizens. I dispute this and invite him to explain why nations like Australia can provide universal health care for 9 percent of its GDP versus the 17 percent the U.S. spends.
“Oz” is not alone in this. Austria, Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway and the UK all spend 10 percent of their GDP on health care. Even Japan, with an aging population, spends only 11 percent. So why do we have to spend 17.2 percent of our GDP on health care?
The difference is not that we have better health care outcomes. All of these nations beat us on metrics such as average lifespan and maternal, infant and child mortality.
Mr. Ambrose, please explain what is it that these nations know that we don’t?