| Photo by Nguyễn Hiệp on Unsplash
Part XI of “A Socioeconomic ‘Co-optopia'” Series
This week, the United States of America celebrates the 250th anniversary of its founding. The American people (both indigenous and immigrants) succeeded in becoming the world’s leader in the arms race and the largest global economy. But it has not ranked among the Top 20 in healthcare comparisons among nations.
As featured in a pinned article in the Facebook Group called “DrRizal/HMO, Knightingale & HNU“ Proposals, the U.S.A. does not appear on two lists of 20 countries with the best healthcare systems in the world.
California is the most populous state and has a world-class economy within the federal union. It has one of the world’s highest-funded and scientifically advanced healthcare systems. But if it were to act like an independent country, it would need to balance equity, affordability, and population-wide health participation and even ownership according to the tenets of Cooperative Economics.
Perhaps the Golden State must pretend as an independent nation when it comes to healthcare. California’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) exceeds $4.25 trillion. Its vast wealth can provide the fundamental tax base and resources to fund state-of-the-art medical technology, research, and infrastructure.
California is home to globally renowned medical centers like UCLA Health, Cedars-Sinai Medical, and other university-hospital systems that frequently rank among the best in the world. Yes, especially in research and development, complex and specialized medical procedures. As suggested earlier in this column, California must be the first state in the American union to adopt the Scandinavian healthcare system and prudent use of taxation.
“To match the top-tier healthcare systems of independent countries like Taiwan, Japan, Norway, or Germany, an independent-like California would have to overhaul its existing framework of approach and adopt fundamental structural reforms.”
On specific metrics like patient safety and preventive-care measures, the Golden State performs well within international health-system scorecards. Currently, the medical infrastructure in California is often viewed as fragmented. There is a need for all healthcare entities to act collectively and form a state-wide viable medical system. While high-end care is exceptional, standard healthcare access and affordability continue to face significant challenges for middle- and lower-income residents, especially its growing homeless population and aging population.
To match the top-tier healthcare systems of independent countries like Taiwan, Japan, Norway, or Germany, an independent-like California would have to overhaul its existing framework of approach and adopt fundamental structural reforms. Many medical experts opine that there is a need to completely decouple health insurance from employer-based practice and transition to an equitable universal healthcare model like a Medicare-like approach to all Californians.
And, as discussed earlier in this column, turn HMOs — and church-owned hospitals and clinics — into public-private partnerships (PPP), as bolstered by cooperatives. Medical staff, non-medical workers, patients, their kin, and in-laws can be aided by state, county, city, and local governments and churches in forming co-ops. Labor unions and pension plans of both public and private employees must be integrated into the suggested PPPs and federation of cooperatives.
The cost of building and maintaining a fully-subsidized, state-run medical system is historically prohibitive. Securing universal and affordable MediCare for all 40+ million Californians — without placing an unsustainable tax burden on its citizens or losing world-class medical talents would be a massive operational hurdle. But it can be done like what the Nordic and some Asian countries are doing. Japan, Taiwan, Singapore and South Korea are operating like the Scandinavian system.
All qualified candidates in the Golden State who remain for the election proper on November 3, 2026, could start discussing common, doable solutions among themselves. Yes, for proposals like “MediCare for All Californians” — as this column is currently discussing. Or call it “MediCAre” (sic, as may now be used by this column and candidates)?
