You may have caught the New York Times piece last week that made much of the fact that even economically backward Rwanda has universal health care for its residents (unlike the heartless U.S.).
Of course, the Times didn’t tell the whole story…
Rwanda is so poor, its per capita income is about 1 percent that of the United States ($370 vs $39,000). Its health care sector is an international charity case: “total health expenditures in Rwanda come to about $307 million a year, and about 53 percent of that comes from foreign donors, the largest of which is the United States.” That’s roughly $32 per person per year, which doesn’t buy much. Dialysis is “generally unavailable.” As are many treatments for cancer, strokes, and heart attacks, making those ailments “death sentences” more often than in advanced nations. Life expectancy at birth is 58 years, compared to 78 years in the United States. Rwandan children are 15 times more likely to die before their first birthday (7 vs. 107 deaths per 1,000 live births) and 25 times more likely to die before turning five (8 vs. 196 deaths per 1,000 live births) than U.S.-born children….
Orthodox. Faithful. Free.
Sign up to get Crisis articles delivered to your inbox daily
What the Times sees as a paradox isn’t really a paradox. Yes, the poorer nation has a higher levels of health insurance coverage. But the wealthier nation does a better job of providing medical care to everyone, insured and uninsured alike.