- Joined
- Mar 19, 2003
- Messages
- 98
- Reaction score
- 3
First, let me lay my cards on the table. I am pro universal healthcare in the United States. I'll not use a loaded phrase like "socialized" or "public sector" medicine, because I'm flexible and open to creative solutions about how it's governed and payed for. I should also mention that I'm a recent graduate of a US medical school, about to start a family medicine residency, lean liberal progressive in my political beliefs, and have traveled and lived abroad widely, mostly in East Asia.
I'll also admit that I'm not nearly as well-read on the debates surrounding universal coverage in the US as I should be, though I aim to change that soon.
While I most often hear the US's healthcare system contrasted with that of wealthy European countries or Canada, the system that intrigues me most is Japan. I've been an exchange student there and have a couple of good friends who are from there, but who don't work in healthcare and know little to nothing about it.
It appears to me that Japan manages to provide a nationalized system that covers its entire resident populace for all medically necessary services, for only nominal fees equivalent to what insured people in the US pay as co-pays. Despite spending only a third of what the US spends on healthcare, Japan manages the world's healthiest and longest-lived populace. And unlike Europe and Canada, income tax is not at all exorbitant. It would appear that good, cheap, universal healthcare is a great example of something that's "Japaneasy".
So how do they do it? If anyone hands me the platitude that they're a homogeneous country, I'm going to scream; this "explanation" seems to be invoked to explain anything the Japanese do well. (Egypt, Poland, and Lesotho are also ethnically homogeneous countries that don't manage to do what Japan does healthcare-wise.) Mostly, I consider this a non-starter because it's a property that can't be emulated in the US.
I'm also aware that Japan has a traditional diet that's nearly ideal. This is a big factor I'm sure -- people who eat very, very well just have fewer health problems that need attending to. This factor has very limited exportability, because national diets are not only a matter of national pride and comfort, but also at the mercy of what's geographically available and affordable to eat.
I note the cultural observation that being active and busy, and mindful of one's health, are taken as ethical duties in Japan. One is obliged to take care of oneself so as to be available, and as little of a burden as possible, to the greater group. Sure this helps. But many other group-oriented societies don't manage the health stats the Japanese do, including ones even more group-oriented than Japan. Clearly this factor would be hard to emulate in the individual freedom loving US, where people cherish the right to mess up their bodies as much as they see fit, and then expect the healthcare system to fix them without them having to lift a finger. (It's what them doctors are paid to do, ain't it?!)
No, what I'm after is what systemic policy factors contribute to Japan's system working so well, because these are the things that potentially are exportable to the US, and things we can indeed learn from.
I have a sneaking hunch that some of it comes down to the deep coffers and bountiful corporate tax revenue reaped from Japan's mighty manufacturing sector, which the US has long forsaken. If Honda and Matsu****a make so much money that they can essentially (through taxes) foot the bill for the nation's healthcare, then that solves a whole lot of the mystery, and frames the US's problem in a whole different way. Can anyone with more knowledge of the Japanese politico-economic structure verify or falsify this hunch?
Why is Japan not more talked about in US debates about healthcare? Say what you will about the nation's recent economic performance -- the fact remains that its populace remains the world's healthiest and arguably best cared for, which is all that really matters for the purposes of this discussion. It could very well be that the Japanese system has been thoroughly analyzed and it's been concluded that none of the factors that make it work can be emulated in the US. That was a US task force's conclusion on Japanese education in the 80s, after all.
I'll also admit that I'm not nearly as well-read on the debates surrounding universal coverage in the US as I should be, though I aim to change that soon.
While I most often hear the US's healthcare system contrasted with that of wealthy European countries or Canada, the system that intrigues me most is Japan. I've been an exchange student there and have a couple of good friends who are from there, but who don't work in healthcare and know little to nothing about it.
It appears to me that Japan manages to provide a nationalized system that covers its entire resident populace for all medically necessary services, for only nominal fees equivalent to what insured people in the US pay as co-pays. Despite spending only a third of what the US spends on healthcare, Japan manages the world's healthiest and longest-lived populace. And unlike Europe and Canada, income tax is not at all exorbitant. It would appear that good, cheap, universal healthcare is a great example of something that's "Japaneasy".
So how do they do it? If anyone hands me the platitude that they're a homogeneous country, I'm going to scream; this "explanation" seems to be invoked to explain anything the Japanese do well. (Egypt, Poland, and Lesotho are also ethnically homogeneous countries that don't manage to do what Japan does healthcare-wise.) Mostly, I consider this a non-starter because it's a property that can't be emulated in the US.
I'm also aware that Japan has a traditional diet that's nearly ideal. This is a big factor I'm sure -- people who eat very, very well just have fewer health problems that need attending to. This factor has very limited exportability, because national diets are not only a matter of national pride and comfort, but also at the mercy of what's geographically available and affordable to eat.
I note the cultural observation that being active and busy, and mindful of one's health, are taken as ethical duties in Japan. One is obliged to take care of oneself so as to be available, and as little of a burden as possible, to the greater group. Sure this helps. But many other group-oriented societies don't manage the health stats the Japanese do, including ones even more group-oriented than Japan. Clearly this factor would be hard to emulate in the individual freedom loving US, where people cherish the right to mess up their bodies as much as they see fit, and then expect the healthcare system to fix them without them having to lift a finger. (It's what them doctors are paid to do, ain't it?!)
No, what I'm after is what systemic policy factors contribute to Japan's system working so well, because these are the things that potentially are exportable to the US, and things we can indeed learn from.
I have a sneaking hunch that some of it comes down to the deep coffers and bountiful corporate tax revenue reaped from Japan's mighty manufacturing sector, which the US has long forsaken. If Honda and Matsu****a make so much money that they can essentially (through taxes) foot the bill for the nation's healthcare, then that solves a whole lot of the mystery, and frames the US's problem in a whole different way. Can anyone with more knowledge of the Japanese politico-economic structure verify or falsify this hunch?
Why is Japan not more talked about in US debates about healthcare? Say what you will about the nation's recent economic performance -- the fact remains that its populace remains the world's healthiest and arguably best cared for, which is all that really matters for the purposes of this discussion. It could very well be that the Japanese system has been thoroughly analyzed and it's been concluded that none of the factors that make it work can be emulated in the US. That was a US task force's conclusion on Japanese education in the 80s, after all.