Most of this wasn't available in a "socialized medicine" country unless you went to the local clinic and waited all fucking day to see a doctor.
Study done in 2004 by the CDC. The way that good science works is that the scientist looks at something and says "What if?" He then develops a statement from that (a hypothesis) then tries to disprove his hypothesis. "The sky is yellow." He first defines yellow. He then tests to see if the sky is yellow. If it turns out that the sky is actually blue, his hypothesis gets disproved. But he still publishes the paper and comes up with another hypothesis. Say that the world is really round. If he cannot disprove his hypothesis, it then and only then becomes a theory. This is Science 101. Man-induced global warming was an hypothesis that had been repeatedly disproven. Anthropogenic (man-caused) global warming proponents weren't scientists, they were religious zealots.
Anyway, the CDC liked "universal healthcare." It was a government health program and government health programs were good. They were a government health program so any government health program had to be good.
Hypothesis: "Universal health care will increase the lifespan and general health of a population over free-market health care."
Conclusion: "Fuck, we were not only wrong we were really wrong!"
How could that possibly be? Seriously. Universal healthcare is, well, universal healthcare! Everybody gets the same quality of treatment, young and old, rich and poor! Nobody is turned away! It's perfect communism! With doctors!
Yeah, everybody gets the same quality of treatment: Bad.
Look, if you're between the ages of 7 and 50, in reasonably good overall condition, don't have fucked up genetics and don't really lose the lottery, you generally don't really need a doctor. People between the ages of 7 and 50 rarely realize how bad socialist medicine is. Because they don't have to depend on doctors.
Try getting a hip replacement in a country with socialized medicine. Or a gall bladder operation. Hell, try getting drugs that improve a heart condition without surgery. And even though you can't, you also can't get surgery. Not in any sort of real time. Go rushing into a socialized medicine hospital with a clogged artery. You're going to get a stent if you're lucky. And get put on a waiting list for a bypass. For various political reasons, drugs that in free-market economies are the first line of defense just aren't available.
In the U.S. the standard time to wait for a gall bladder operation was two weeks. In the UK it was nine months. In the U.S., if you needed a bypass you'd be out of the surgery less than fourteen hours after emergency admission. In the UK it was emergency admission, minimal support therapy, months wait. Some 35% of persons waiting for a bypass operation died before they got one.
They found an interesting statistical anomaly as well. Death rates amongst the elderly climbed sharply as the end of the fiscal year approached.
Doctors in socialized medicine programs worked for the same pay whether they fixed people or not. But they had quotas for operations. As the end of the fiscal year approached, most of them had filled their quotas and went on actual or virtual vacation.
And people died.
Average population age in most of the socialized medicine countries were only starting to climb to the levels where death rates due to poor medical care were going to be noticeable. But the truncation of ages was clear. As were quality of life indicators.
Persons in free-market medical environments lived longer, healthier, less pain-filled lives. Despite the evil doctors and HMOs and pharmaceutical companies? No, because of the evil doctors and HMOs and pharmaceutical companies. All three groups had a vested interest in keeping patients alive as long as possible. The longer they lived, the more money the "evil" guys made.
The U.S. had been repeatedly castigated for the cost of healthcare and especially pharmaceuticals. Also for over-prescription of the newest and most costly.
But.
In Europe there was no pressure to use pharmaceuticals. With costs capped by the government, there was no incentive for the pharmaceutical companies. Modern pharmaceuticals are enormously expensive to field. The first problem is the cost of development. Many of them are derived from natural substances, but it takes relentless searching to find a new natural substance. Cancer drugs were derived from rare South African pansies, new antibiotics were derived from fungus found on a stone in a Japanese temple. Then they had to be tested to find out if any benefits could be derived.
Here's the numbers:
Animal (screening) in rats—about 1–2 years, cost about $500k/year, in monkeys—about 2–5 years, cost $2 million a year. Phase I in humans is strictly toxicology: 2 years, $10–20 million a year. If it doesn't kill anybody, then move to Phase II testing for effectiveness: up to 10 years, cost $100+ million/year. If statistics suggest a beneficial effect, then on to Phase III to determine effective dosage, side effects, other benefits and "off-label" uses: 5–10 years at another. $100+ million a year. A (large) Pharma company will start with 10,000 compounds in screening, take about 200 into animal testing, then possibly get ten into Phase I to maybe get one into Phase II. In the last 10–20 years, about 95% of Alzheimer's disease drugs that got to Phase II on the basis of rodent testing were sent back because they had no effect in humans—hence the necessity for the added expense of monkey testing . . .
It was a hideously expensive process. Again, Do. The. Math. Easily a billion dollars invested in one drug. The reason that a new pharmaceutical was so expensive was not just the cost of developing that pharmaceutical but the brutal necessity of so many thousands and millions of failures that that one new shining hope bore upon its back. Billions of dollars lost when "miracle" drugs failed at one step or another. And all that money only being recouped by those limited shining hopes that made it through the process.
But the results were worth every penny. New drugs that cut the need for bypasses; one of the most lucrative surgeries of the 1980s had been almost eliminated in the U.S. by the time of the Plague. Stroke reducing medicines, anti-cancer medicines, cancer prophyllactics and, of course, Viagra, every old man's fantasy made real.
In Europe, in contrast, it was considered cheaper to just operate. Much more unpleasant for the patient but the doctors filled their quotas and the government wasn't forced to pay for the development of pharmaceuticals. Which was why most of the modern wonder drugs were coming out of America or from European businesses that were making most of their nut selling them in America.
Doctors in socialized medicine countries, and their bosses and the heads of departments, had no vested interest in keeping old people or the chronically sick alive. The doctors might have a personal desire to help people, otherwise they wouldn't have become doctors. But they had no actual benefit and if you've ever dealt with a bunch of crotchety old people you can see some of the actual detraction.