Universal health care works well elsewhere and brings savings

In his March 18 column, Charles Krauthammer claims that Western democracies have never repealed universal health care because it is not possible to abolish a benefit that has been given (“The Real World of Obamacare Repeal”). That is absolute nonsense.

The real reason is that universal health care is substantially cheaper. These democracies spend about 10 percent of gross domestic product or less on health care compared with 17 percent of GDP for the United States. What if the U.S. managed to reduce its health care cost to that level?

In 2015, the U.S. spent about $3.2 trillion ($10,000 for every person!); at 10 percent of GDP, the cost would be $1.9 trillion for a savings of $1.3 trillion. The U.S. government spends a little less than 50 percent of total health care expenditures so would save approximately $600 billion; in 2016, the federal deficit was $587 billion and that would essentially disappear. The remaining savings of $700 billion (about $2,000 per person) would accrue to the public and could be spent on goods, retirement savings, etc.

There are significant differences in how various countries have implemented universal health care. In the Netherlands (where I was born and have many relatives), only children (up to 18 years) and adults with chronic, long-term illnesses are covered by the government; all others, including seniors, are insured by private, for-profit companies. There are also no government doctors or hospitals; these are all private. In 2015, 86 percent of the population in the Netherlands was satisfied with the health care they received; in the U.S., only 53 percent gave an “excellent” or “good” rating for their health care.

With such examples, it is frustrating that the preferred U.S. approach consists of making health care unaffordable for a significant portion of the population. THEO Van De VENNE

Murrysville