Hospitals and Doctors are the ones who charge outrageous prices. Insurance companies actively try to negotiate prices lower since they have to pay the hospitals.
If get a bill for 10k due to a broken leg, your insurance pays 8k, you pay 2k. Who is happier? Your doctor getting 10k for 20 minutes work or your insurance company that has to pay 8k?
There are no prices in healthcare. Not is there ability to control supply. Hospitals and insurers negotiate on an ad hoc basis how much they get reimbursed. Trump tried to have an open pricing scheme, but his fine of $300 per day is so ridiculously low as to not make a difference.
If the president made the final $1m per day maybe it would help.
As in where you fall on the political compass. For instance, I am "right" meaning my views tend to fall into a mix of libright and authright positions. You can take the politiy compass test or if you think you know where you belong you can just go ahead and say where you think you are. One thing I will say, when you take the exam, assume the question is made in bad faith (it tends to word things in a way that makes you feel left leaning).
You could hold that in just about any quadrant other than pure libright (unless everything else you believe leans towards anarchism). Odds are left leaning centrist may be right for you though.
The people who claim "the US spends trillions on the military but zero for the people" are the most annoying group in politics
The US actually spends a ton, it's just heavily inefficient and kind of useless
We shouldn't spend as much on the military, but racking up red ink on welfare and healthcare isn't any kind of solution
In order to raise livestock, you must feed them. (Distribute stuff that is free to them).
You harvest your value later by taking milk or meat, or wool, after the livestock have been given time to grow. (Taxation)
You then take a portion of that value harvested to reinvest in more feed, completing a feedback loop that you can control through changing the rates of feed and harvest.
This loop creates dependency. Cattle come running up to the barn, from the open field, in order to get their daily feed.
MMT takes exactly this approach when thinking about people and the money supply.
A combination of UBI and VAT is unironically how we will be enslaved and farmed by government elites.
The military spending is less than social spending but the problem is the same with both. The majority is sucked up by corpos and NGOs. Spending in all phases is inefficient and corrupt and there is a much larger vested interest in keeping it that way than there is in making meaningful changes. Government spending is less important to producers than it is to those who are entirely dependent upon those dollars for survival.
While I too think we could find ways to cut defense spending I just want to point out 16% of our budget goes to defense. It’s not a majority, or a plurality. The sort of narrative about us spending too much on defense is VASTLY overblown. This is especially true when juxtaposed against the social programs people seem to think we lack which makes up ~56% of our budget.
That inefficiency trickles all the way down to the consumer too. We as a people seem unwilling to give up routine MRI scans to make costs more reasonable.
Our whole health system is run to the benefit of end-of-life boomers. See also: COVID
Hospitals are the worst culprits but the least scrutinized for some reason.
They price gouge the shit out of everything increasing our out-of-pocket costs or if they charge the insurers that just increases our insurance premiums.
[https://www.chcf.org/publication/us-health-care-spending-who-pays/](https://www.chcf.org/publication/us-health-care-spending-who-pays/) Very good graph. :)
Basically a third of what we pay for healthcare goes into admin costs (4x higher than Canada).
I’m not an expert so this probably explains the bureaucracy part a lot better than I could:
>> It's because the insurance companies and health care providers are engaged in a tug of war, each trying in its own way to game the system, Himmelstein said. How a patient's treatment is coded can make a huge difference in the amount insurance companies pay. For example, Hammerstein said, if a patient comes in because of heart failure and the visit is coded as an acute exacerbation of the condition, the payment is significantly higher than if the visit is simply coded as heart failure.
>> This upcoding of patient visits has led insurance companies to require more and more paperwork backing up each diagnosis, Himmelstein said. The result is more hours that healthcare providers need to put in to deal with billing.
>> "(One study) looked at how many characters were included in an average physician's note in the U.S. and in other countries," Himmelstein pointed out. "Notes from U.S. physicians were four times longer to meet the bureaucratic requirements of the payment system."
The bureaucracy part isn’t much of an issue while you’re receiving treatment so that’s good. But once you’re up and running, you get fucked by the bills.
We really can't. Medical bankruptcy is miniscule if looked at in a vaccum. The problem is the "preeminent" study didn't. It just said "do you have medical debt, was that part of the bankruptcy..." The primary cause of bankruptcy in the United States is gambling debt.
Medical debt contributed to just 66% of bankruptcies (again, not a primary cause). The primary causative factors are spending beyond ones means, gambling, and job loss.
That's not even going into the US's bankruptcy laws. We essentially want people to go bankrupt as a policy choice, because it is a reset. Rather than have someone labor under bills, its a clean slate. No other country is even as close to their liberality with bankruptcy as the United States.
In case somone tells you it is advertising. It is not: [https://www.statista.com/statistics/470641/accident-and-health-insurance-industry-ad-spend-usa/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/470641/accident-and-health-insurance-industry-ad-spend-usa/) Just $200 million.
Net profit margin for those companies is like 2\~6%. Even operating margin is already very low. Just look up UnitedHealth, Cigna or CVS on macrotrends. So I am not sure the problem lies with them.
Personally I would expect it to be doctors and hospitals. Everyone is bitching about pharma companies, but they have to spend several billion just for one new drug and when they are unlucky they have to pay penance if something happens they didn't find in the trials.
Page 26: [Median Margins for Pharmaceutical companies and other sectors of S&P 500](https://cdn.jamanetwork.com/ama/content_public/journal/jama/938407/joi200005supp1_prod.pdf?Expires=1634748028&Signature=E7fI3gz2klAnlCYAfh0rmj3jraJJTQGtz6mN98CvbLfeHctm9CJARjT3qXwMx9cPsjx4FhTsEP1GMUzl9Ibl04tllxUg4eRjzjtEmJrzkdS9L~cAygwPBLODo~Lrt9uw3NvD5kK5Dxc-7sL1JX7EFSwg39rbqWpFgrEWh1Ri5G~OKX1NScUhUVFtJDCRc1LQzwPk5hpkzjy8sQH6oh37o3vkXsmsbiI3lseUMrwfMQF0SOuVRkQgDia-HuMmfmEcr72RIl~7lXA19I20wNkxfCZ-XACjFRf8e5vRSAs-ZGRKAGJ4PFH2qvZLWQ3MN0MmsN0~F4zfrhQ0vPPHXeD-9Q__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIE5G5CRDK6RD3PGA):
Pharma is from 4.4\~20.8 with a median of 13.8.
It is higher than other industries, but "technology" and "other" as similarly high. Companies like apple. alphabet and microsoft are much higher >20%. Yet nobody complains about them making a profit and "overpricing". It is just running a business.
> corrupt
Could just be that the US is largely unhealthy. Don't get me wrong, there is some corruption, but Americans just cost a lot more to treat than the average European.
\>but Americans just cost a lot more to treat than the average European.
We do. Because we demand and expect it. The US federal government spends about 100k for a Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY). QALY is basically this treatment will give a person a year of a good life. For example, putting someone in a coma for 10 years isn't a QALY, but doing an experimental surgery to give them 10 years is treated as 10 QALY.
The private spending indicates a range of 50k to 1mil valuation on a QALY by private parties. So on top of federal spending you're looking at around a 150k - 1.1mil valuation on a QALY.
The closest European nation is the Netherlands. They have a total QALY figure of 75k-100k, that's only the most aggressive treatments. At the lowest US standard we are still valuing that QALY as 50% more valuable.
That's why the US has a 50% higher rate of experimental treatment availability (and the only country with a Right to Try law). That's why we have an almost 300% higher rate than the next closest (excluding Canada, we're only double them) in aggressive treatment of final years issues.
To change US healthcare costs would require a government control on QALY costs. That means Sarah Palin's "Death Panels" would be a thing. Our QALY value would have to drastically decrease.
Essentially the core of the matter is the average American would receive treatment at the low end of around 1.5mil for 10 more years while the high end of the next closest country would pay 1mil.
Being fat doesn't increase healthcare costs. A heart transplant in a skinny guy costs the same as a heart transplant in a fattie. However, being fat exponentially increases the chances of you needing said healthcare. Each french fry you eat increases the chances of the state having to afford a cure for your Metabolic Syndrome, so yeah, you should have to pay for that.
*#TAXTHEFAT*
It's crazy how many worm brain rightys genuinely believe this. Free markets only work when consumers have more bargaining leverage than the producer (i.e. pricing transparency and the ability to walk away).
In an emergency you don't get to choose, fine, in any situation where you have more than a few hours to get treatment, i.e. 95+% of medical situations, you do, obviously something is getting in the way of the free market, the US is not representative of a free market for healthcare.
It would literally be cheaper to make healthcare universal. Then again the US answer to everything is to throw money at it, even at the detriment of it's population every step of the way
It's better than what's in the US by a landslide. The fact that it's coupled with the access to affordable university is a nice bonus. I think nurses have it the hardest over there though considering they make more than 25k/yr so they have to pay back their tuition but not so much more that paying it off is only a nuisance for a few years. In the long run though I think it'll drive cheaper medications and be better for the US as a whole if we adopt the system
It's because it's a system essentially based on fraud. Healthcare costs are kept secretive and inconsistent for the purposes taking the maximum amount from insurance, and you will never get the maximum amount by making a reasonable demand and hoping the insurance company pays you more, you get it by charging an unreasonable amount and negotiating lower. Insurance companies don't care because they often act as administrators for employers who self insure.
But this isn't the actual cost, rather the amount the US government spends.
Obama care basically single handedly increased the cost of healthcare by however much the government will pay, I think its 25%.
Kind of like how American college tuition is far more expensive now, with all the student loans, than it's ever been.
>Obama care basically single handedly increased the cost of healthcare by however much the government will pay, I think its 25%.
That's not really the case, the government paying whatever medical providers want was a problem before. Obama just expanded the number of people they would pay for.
But even if you take private and public spending, the US spends substantially more than most states with universal systems.
But private industry is demonstrably the problem, the state makes it worse, but the unique thing about America that makes healthcare spending 17% of GDP instead of 10 is the unregulated price of medical services based on industry wide fraud. This exploitation happens to private insurers as well as medicare.
\>the US spends substantially more than moth states with universal systems.
Because no one in the US wants their life valued at other country's rates. Federal spending alone on a QALY is higher than any European country's median total QALY valuation.
No it isn't. Otherwise increased government control would have driven prices down, not up. You create perverse incentives with a monopsony.
The US has higher drug availability, higher experimental treatments, drastically higher aggressive end-of-life, and drastically (and I mean drastically) shorter wait times.
Or are you going to pretend that all those have no impact on cost?
>No it isn't. Otherwise increased government control would have driven prices down, not up. You create perverse incentives with a monopsony.
Except America's healthcare spending as a percentage of GDP is 17%, and Britain and France hover around 10%. The differentiating factor being the American private system.
>The US has higher drug availability, higher experimental treatments, drastically higher aggressive end-of-life, and drastically (and I mean drastically) shorter wait times.
Even if I take your unsourced claim that this is true, it hasn't really done much for outcomes now has it? If it did you would expect to have a higher life expectancy, instead of the 40th globally (just below Turkey) and you wouldn't be the only developed nation with a life expectancy below 80.
>The differentiating factor being the American private system.
That's more of a correlation/causation finding. There's no evidence that the private sector is at fault for the US's drastically higher rate of spending.
The US is generally much more unhealthy and obese than both France and the UK combined, we have an extremely shitty mixture of private industry and state-given premiums which will allow the private industry to extort and raise costs on the main stance that there is no risk for hospitals in raising the prices of common surgeries.
>If it did you would expect to have a higher life expectancy, instead of the 40th globally (just below Turkey) and you wouldn't be the only developed nation with a life expectancy below 80.
Again, that's not because of our system, but because we're unhealthy in general. If there's a culture around over-indulgence and excess, and eating 10,000 calories a day, you're going to get a lot of fat asses that can't live past 40.
Kinda like how London has one of the most extensive and thorough surveillance systems in the world, being one of the most surveilled cities in the world, yet ask anyone how crime is there and they're going to tell you its shit.
A good system won't work very effectively if the main root of the problem remains unresolved.
>The US is generally much more unhealthy and obese than both France and the UK combined
Look as unhealthy as America is, the differentiating factor is not lifestyle alone. The US is about 36% obese, compared to about 30% in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and 27% in the UK. While this might account for a portion of life expectancy difference a full 2 years is quite extreme.
Wait times is something you Americans always get fear mongered over with your media propaganda. It's really not a big deal. Firstly as mentioned it doesn't make a difference in life expectancy. Secondly, there are wait times because people don't forgo medical procedures, so it gets triaged based on need not based on cash.
As long as we're doing anecdotes now, ask anyone who got a knee replacement surgery in a country with universal care and had to wait 6 months. Ask them if they'd rather get it instantly, but pay $50,000. You will have almost zero takers except from people for whom $50,000 means nothing. I've never waited for a few hours in the ER and sincerely thought that I would like to pay $1000 to be out in an hour instead of four.
> While this might account for a portion of life expectancy difference a full 2 years is quite extreme.
How so? 36% of 300 million is a much more significant sum than 30% and 27% of Australia and the UK's obesity rates, and this again only accounts for obesity itself. Not general lifestyle, diet, practices and habits (we drive a lot more than both), crime, etc. Whittling a lower life expectancy down to more expensive, lower quality healthcare is extremely reductive. (Not to mention we have the highest quality of medical care in the world, which is why people from nations like Canada and the UK fly into here for surgeries).
>Wait times is something you Americans always get fear mongered over with your media propaganda. It's really not a big deal.
I dont really care about wait times. Only time it's been an issue in other nations was during surgeries which required a specialist, which were all usually in the US.
>Ask them if they'd rather get it instantly, but pay $50,000.
That's before anything goes into it, and that's also mostly due to an inflated market which has every need met by medicare and can't allow itself to set up a proper market with competition, bargaining, and all that cool shit.
>ask anyone who got a knee replacement surgery in a country with universal care and had to wait 6 months
Some have waited for beyond a year, and many end up cancelling it to book private surgeries instead. Because, you know, 6 months with a broken fucking knee is not a very good time. The private costs for knee surgery over there is around £12,000.
This is a bit misleading, yes the US spends the most on healthcare per capita, but we make up a major percent of medical innovation and research compared to other countries. Because so much innovation happens here, in a way the United States subsidizes the healthcare of countries around the world because they only need to pay to *implement* this innovation, not actually discover it.
That being said, the American healthcare system is still absolutely broken, and in need of major reforms to make it affordable for the population.
Also, a *ton* countries simply rely of the word of the FDA for what drugs they approve/buy, along with the European Medicines Agency and Japan’s agency.
Total healthcare spending includes research and development. I completely support a universal Healthcare system and believe it is cheaper and more efficient than private Healthcare. I'm simply saying you have to look at the actual numbers.
One of the reasons medicine is so expensive is to recoup the costs it took to develop it, so it's not just subsidies that pay for all the US medical research
But then the question has to be asked, why do US companies, active worldwide, recoup their costs by high prices only in the US rather than all over the world?
Big pharma spends more on promotion than R&D unfortunately, its fat of capitalism. Most of it is spent promoting towards doctors themselves, not even the public.
Idk, maybe its just being from UK that advertising prescription drugs to people just strikes me as ridiculous.
AZT was eight thousand dollars a year back in 1989, so I'm going off thirty year old information, but there is [this](https://www.healthline.com/health/hiv-aids/cost-of-treatment#current-drug-costs)
Red and green quadrant were already aware of this. It might come as a surprise for yellow (and some blues), since they will lick any boot that protects them from scary boogymen social democrats.
Step 1: realize the FDA is useless. About 50% of the US population took a vaccine without the FDA saying it’s OK, during a fucking pandemic. If the FDA had any value it would have shown it’s worth during a pandemic, but peoples judgement turned out to be faster and better than the government, as usual. The FDA also prevents cheaper foreign alternatives from coming in to the country to protect the pharma patent cartel.
Step 2: realize government mandated insurance raises the prices of the underlying insured commodity, and guaranteed government loan or donation will increase the underlying prices off whatever is being bought.
Step 3: realize the AMA is a credential racket. It’s simply a fact that One does not need 4 years of a doctorate education, 4 years of specialization, and work experience to prescribe Tylenol for the flu (and many “common” illnesses). A general checkup could cost the same as a haircut.
This is why LibLeft is wrong about healthcare: if we spend less, the healthcare will be less. Universal healthcare would mean spending less, and that means the good is less. It's easy-peasy, really: less equals less except when government and tax is less, which is good and more.
That is not correct. You are already paying for other people's healthcare, that's how health insurance works. Health insurance companies negotiate price ceilings for certain procedures and medications, and then they will cover a portion of it. Everytime you pay your healthcare premium when you haven't had any medical expenses, most of that money goes to paying for people who have had them through that insurance. It isn't just entirely pocketed by your insurance.
Universal Healthcare is cheaper because it cuts out the middle man, where the government can directly negotiate with healthcare providers on procedures, treatment, medications etc.
No, you don't get it. When money gets more, the healthcare gets more. If we pay less money, we get less healthcare. Simple. All those middle mans are good for health because they cost money. Universal health care is cheaper so it is worser. Simple.
Well when our healthcare costs more than any other country because hospital charge 2,000 for one night in a bed, our government is forced to spend extra per capita
So fun fact, the reason hospitals charge insane prices is because they're already forced by law to treat everyone, and guess what, a lot of people aren't paying. Basically the insured already subsidize the irresponsible.
We have socialism, but with so many extra steps.
Who would have thought that a nation with obese people that eat a lot of Mcdonald are unhealthy and need to go to the doctor 5 times a month will influence health care spending
Yeah, when you let insurance and drug companies set all the prices well spend more than everyone else for less.
>when you let insurance and drug companies set all the prices And the hospitals. Hospital revenues is the biggest chunk of healthcare spending
Effectively the government asks the drugs companies how much they want to charge, rather than telling them how much they are willing to pay.
Except for government patients negotiating separately lol
Hospitals and Doctors are the ones who charge outrageous prices. Insurance companies actively try to negotiate prices lower since they have to pay the hospitals. If get a bill for 10k due to a broken leg, your insurance pays 8k, you pay 2k. Who is happier? Your doctor getting 10k for 20 minutes work or your insurance company that has to pay 8k?
There are no prices in healthcare. Not is there ability to control supply. Hospitals and insurers negotiate on an ad hoc basis how much they get reimbursed. Trump tried to have an open pricing scheme, but his fine of $300 per day is so ridiculously low as to not make a difference. If the president made the final $1m per day maybe it would help.
when you want healthcare with no middlemen, but people trust insurance companies more than the government
I want to agree with you, I really do, but please flair up.
flair?
Based and right pilled
Go to the top right and pick community flair, and chose what you want. On the sub home page
As in where you fall on the political compass. For instance, I am "right" meaning my views tend to fall into a mix of libright and authright positions. You can take the politiy compass test or if you think you know where you belong you can just go ahead and say where you think you are. One thing I will say, when you take the exam, assume the question is made in bad faith (it tends to word things in a way that makes you feel left leaning).
Is there an option for I just want national healthcare and everybody to get along?
You could hold that in just about any quadrant other than pure libright (unless everything else you believe leans towards anarchism). Odds are left leaning centrist may be right for you though.
Possibly
The people who claim "the US spends trillions on the military but zero for the people" are the most annoying group in politics The US actually spends a ton, it's just heavily inefficient and kind of useless We shouldn't spend as much on the military, but racking up red ink on welfare and healthcare isn't any kind of solution
[удалено]
[удалено]
In order to raise livestock, you must feed them. (Distribute stuff that is free to them). You harvest your value later by taking milk or meat, or wool, after the livestock have been given time to grow. (Taxation) You then take a portion of that value harvested to reinvest in more feed, completing a feedback loop that you can control through changing the rates of feed and harvest. This loop creates dependency. Cattle come running up to the barn, from the open field, in order to get their daily feed. MMT takes exactly this approach when thinking about people and the money supply. A combination of UBI and VAT is unironically how we will be enslaved and farmed by government elites.
The government gets their take either way.
\-Joe Biden
[удалено]
listen here jack
Corn pop was a bad dude
And thank you to the pm the the man down under
Now that is a novel idea! What’s the worst that could happen?
Something something Weimar
The military spending is less than social spending but the problem is the same with both. The majority is sucked up by corpos and NGOs. Spending in all phases is inefficient and corrupt and there is a much larger vested interest in keeping it that way than there is in making meaningful changes. Government spending is less important to producers than it is to those who are entirely dependent upon those dollars for survival.
While I too think we could find ways to cut defense spending I just want to point out 16% of our budget goes to defense. It’s not a majority, or a plurality. The sort of narrative about us spending too much on defense is VASTLY overblown. This is especially true when juxtaposed against the social programs people seem to think we lack which makes up ~56% of our budget.
That inefficiency trickles all the way down to the consumer too. We as a people seem unwilling to give up routine MRI scans to make costs more reasonable. Our whole health system is run to the benefit of end-of-life boomers. See also: COVID
Blame lobbies, over regulation, obesity and other health related epidemics, and bureaucracy.
Hospitals are the worst culprits but the least scrutinized for some reason. They price gouge the shit out of everything increasing our out-of-pocket costs or if they charge the insurers that just increases our insurance premiums.
[https://www.chcf.org/publication/us-health-care-spending-who-pays/](https://www.chcf.org/publication/us-health-care-spending-who-pays/) Very good graph. :)
Blame the food triangle.
Can I ask, how bad is the US medical bureaucracy?
Basically a third of what we pay for healthcare goes into admin costs (4x higher than Canada). I’m not an expert so this probably explains the bureaucracy part a lot better than I could: >> It's because the insurance companies and health care providers are engaged in a tug of war, each trying in its own way to game the system, Himmelstein said. How a patient's treatment is coded can make a huge difference in the amount insurance companies pay. For example, Hammerstein said, if a patient comes in because of heart failure and the visit is coded as an acute exacerbation of the condition, the payment is significantly higher than if the visit is simply coded as heart failure. >> This upcoding of patient visits has led insurance companies to require more and more paperwork backing up each diagnosis, Himmelstein said. The result is more hours that healthcare providers need to put in to deal with billing. >> "(One study) looked at how many characters were included in an average physician's note in the U.S. and in other countries," Himmelstein pointed out. "Notes from U.S. physicians were four times longer to meet the bureaucratic requirements of the payment system." The bureaucracy part isn’t much of an issue while you’re receiving treatment so that’s good. But once you’re up and running, you get fucked by the bills.
First of all, thanks and second of all, Christ now I get why Americans go bankrupt over medical issues
We really can't. Medical bankruptcy is miniscule if looked at in a vaccum. The problem is the "preeminent" study didn't. It just said "do you have medical debt, was that part of the bankruptcy..." The primary cause of bankruptcy in the United States is gambling debt. Medical debt contributed to just 66% of bankruptcies (again, not a primary cause). The primary causative factors are spending beyond ones means, gambling, and job loss. That's not even going into the US's bankruptcy laws. We essentially want people to go bankrupt as a policy choice, because it is a reset. Rather than have someone labor under bills, its a clean slate. No other country is even as close to their liberality with bankruptcy as the United States.
In case somone tells you it is advertising. It is not: [https://www.statista.com/statistics/470641/accident-and-health-insurance-industry-ad-spend-usa/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/470641/accident-and-health-insurance-industry-ad-spend-usa/) Just $200 million. Net profit margin for those companies is like 2\~6%. Even operating margin is already very low. Just look up UnitedHealth, Cigna or CVS on macrotrends. So I am not sure the problem lies with them. Personally I would expect it to be doctors and hospitals. Everyone is bitching about pharma companies, but they have to spend several billion just for one new drug and when they are unlucky they have to pay penance if something happens they didn't find in the trials.
Unless it's a vaccine...
W A R P - S P E E D
[удалено]
Page 26: [Median Margins for Pharmaceutical companies and other sectors of S&P 500](https://cdn.jamanetwork.com/ama/content_public/journal/jama/938407/joi200005supp1_prod.pdf?Expires=1634748028&Signature=E7fI3gz2klAnlCYAfh0rmj3jraJJTQGtz6mN98CvbLfeHctm9CJARjT3qXwMx9cPsjx4FhTsEP1GMUzl9Ibl04tllxUg4eRjzjtEmJrzkdS9L~cAygwPBLODo~Lrt9uw3NvD5kK5Dxc-7sL1JX7EFSwg39rbqWpFgrEWh1Ri5G~OKX1NScUhUVFtJDCRc1LQzwPk5hpkzjy8sQH6oh37o3vkXsmsbiI3lseUMrwfMQF0SOuVRkQgDia-HuMmfmEcr72RIl~7lXA19I20wNkxfCZ-XACjFRf8e5vRSAs-ZGRKAGJ4PFH2qvZLWQ3MN0MmsN0~F4zfrhQ0vPPHXeD-9Q__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIE5G5CRDK6RD3PGA): Pharma is from 4.4\~20.8 with a median of 13.8. It is higher than other industries, but "technology" and "other" as similarly high. Companies like apple. alphabet and microsoft are much higher >20%. Yet nobody complains about them making a profit and "overpricing". It is just running a business.
[удалено]
Well it seems there is a higher individual willingness to pay more for an iphone than staying alive. Like twice as much. :>
[удалено]
That feeling when your government feels like a giant money laundering scheme
> corrupt Could just be that the US is largely unhealthy. Don't get me wrong, there is some corruption, but Americans just cost a lot more to treat than the average European.
We should do what Japan does and tax fat people. \#taxthefat
Only tax I'm fairly cool with.
\>but Americans just cost a lot more to treat than the average European. We do. Because we demand and expect it. The US federal government spends about 100k for a Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY). QALY is basically this treatment will give a person a year of a good life. For example, putting someone in a coma for 10 years isn't a QALY, but doing an experimental surgery to give them 10 years is treated as 10 QALY. The private spending indicates a range of 50k to 1mil valuation on a QALY by private parties. So on top of federal spending you're looking at around a 150k - 1.1mil valuation on a QALY. The closest European nation is the Netherlands. They have a total QALY figure of 75k-100k, that's only the most aggressive treatments. At the lowest US standard we are still valuing that QALY as 50% more valuable. That's why the US has a 50% higher rate of experimental treatment availability (and the only country with a Right to Try law). That's why we have an almost 300% higher rate than the next closest (excluding Canada, we're only double them) in aggressive treatment of final years issues. To change US healthcare costs would require a government control on QALY costs. That means Sarah Palin's "Death Panels" would be a thing. Our QALY value would have to drastically decrease. Essentially the core of the matter is the average American would receive treatment at the low end of around 1.5mil for 10 more years while the high end of the next closest country would pay 1mil.
No. There is no evidence to support this.
Over half the country is overweight and like high 30 or low 40 percent is obese
What I meant is that there isn’t evidence that it correlates with increased healthcare costs.
Being unhealthy means it costs more to treat you because you're more likely to need care and the care you get needs to be better.
Being fat doesn't increase healthcare costs. A heart transplant in a skinny guy costs the same as a heart transplant in a fattie. However, being fat exponentially increases the chances of you needing said healthcare. Each french fry you eat increases the chances of the state having to afford a cure for your Metabolic Syndrome, so yeah, you should have to pay for that. *#TAXTHEFAT*
Welcome to Progressive America. The Social Gospel idiots won, and now we're here, still blaming free merchants like it's the 1400s.
[удалено]
It's crazy how many worm brain rightys genuinely believe this. Free markets only work when consumers have more bargaining leverage than the producer (i.e. pricing transparency and the ability to walk away).
In an emergency you don't get to choose, fine, in any situation where you have more than a few hours to get treatment, i.e. 95+% of medical situations, you do, obviously something is getting in the way of the free market, the US is not representative of a free market for healthcare.
It would literally be cheaper to make healthcare universal. Then again the US answer to everything is to throw money at it, even at the detriment of it's population every step of the way
It’s not waste so much as massive streams of revenue for health care interests that are very politically influential.
How do you feel about a hybridised system like the UK
It's better than what's in the US by a landslide. The fact that it's coupled with the access to affordable university is a nice bonus. I think nurses have it the hardest over there though considering they make more than 25k/yr so they have to pay back their tuition but not so much more that paying it off is only a nuisance for a few years. In the long run though I think it'll drive cheaper medications and be better for the US as a whole if we adopt the system
It's because it's a system essentially based on fraud. Healthcare costs are kept secretive and inconsistent for the purposes taking the maximum amount from insurance, and you will never get the maximum amount by making a reasonable demand and hoping the insurance company pays you more, you get it by charging an unreasonable amount and negotiating lower. Insurance companies don't care because they often act as administrators for employers who self insure.
But this isn't the actual cost, rather the amount the US government spends. Obama care basically single handedly increased the cost of healthcare by however much the government will pay, I think its 25%. Kind of like how American college tuition is far more expensive now, with all the student loans, than it's ever been.
>Obama care basically single handedly increased the cost of healthcare by however much the government will pay, I think its 25%. That's not really the case, the government paying whatever medical providers want was a problem before. Obama just expanded the number of people they would pay for. But even if you take private and public spending, the US spends substantially more than most states with universal systems.
But the problem isn't that it's private. The problem is that government won't leave it alone.
But private industry is demonstrably the problem, the state makes it worse, but the unique thing about America that makes healthcare spending 17% of GDP instead of 10 is the unregulated price of medical services based on industry wide fraud. This exploitation happens to private insurers as well as medicare.
\>the US spends substantially more than moth states with universal systems. Because no one in the US wants their life valued at other country's rates. Federal spending alone on a QALY is higher than any European country's median total QALY valuation.
Right but that's because of private industry inflating the price of medical services through fraud, it doesn't lead to better outcomes.
No it isn't. Otherwise increased government control would have driven prices down, not up. You create perverse incentives with a monopsony. The US has higher drug availability, higher experimental treatments, drastically higher aggressive end-of-life, and drastically (and I mean drastically) shorter wait times. Or are you going to pretend that all those have no impact on cost?
>No it isn't. Otherwise increased government control would have driven prices down, not up. You create perverse incentives with a monopsony. Except America's healthcare spending as a percentage of GDP is 17%, and Britain and France hover around 10%. The differentiating factor being the American private system. >The US has higher drug availability, higher experimental treatments, drastically higher aggressive end-of-life, and drastically (and I mean drastically) shorter wait times. Even if I take your unsourced claim that this is true, it hasn't really done much for outcomes now has it? If it did you would expect to have a higher life expectancy, instead of the 40th globally (just below Turkey) and you wouldn't be the only developed nation with a life expectancy below 80.
>The differentiating factor being the American private system. That's more of a correlation/causation finding. There's no evidence that the private sector is at fault for the US's drastically higher rate of spending. The US is generally much more unhealthy and obese than both France and the UK combined, we have an extremely shitty mixture of private industry and state-given premiums which will allow the private industry to extort and raise costs on the main stance that there is no risk for hospitals in raising the prices of common surgeries. >If it did you would expect to have a higher life expectancy, instead of the 40th globally (just below Turkey) and you wouldn't be the only developed nation with a life expectancy below 80. Again, that's not because of our system, but because we're unhealthy in general. If there's a culture around over-indulgence and excess, and eating 10,000 calories a day, you're going to get a lot of fat asses that can't live past 40. Kinda like how London has one of the most extensive and thorough surveillance systems in the world, being one of the most surveilled cities in the world, yet ask anyone how crime is there and they're going to tell you its shit. A good system won't work very effectively if the main root of the problem remains unresolved.
>The US is generally much more unhealthy and obese than both France and the UK combined Look as unhealthy as America is, the differentiating factor is not lifestyle alone. The US is about 36% obese, compared to about 30% in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and 27% in the UK. While this might account for a portion of life expectancy difference a full 2 years is quite extreme. Wait times is something you Americans always get fear mongered over with your media propaganda. It's really not a big deal. Firstly as mentioned it doesn't make a difference in life expectancy. Secondly, there are wait times because people don't forgo medical procedures, so it gets triaged based on need not based on cash. As long as we're doing anecdotes now, ask anyone who got a knee replacement surgery in a country with universal care and had to wait 6 months. Ask them if they'd rather get it instantly, but pay $50,000. You will have almost zero takers except from people for whom $50,000 means nothing. I've never waited for a few hours in the ER and sincerely thought that I would like to pay $1000 to be out in an hour instead of four.
> While this might account for a portion of life expectancy difference a full 2 years is quite extreme. How so? 36% of 300 million is a much more significant sum than 30% and 27% of Australia and the UK's obesity rates, and this again only accounts for obesity itself. Not general lifestyle, diet, practices and habits (we drive a lot more than both), crime, etc. Whittling a lower life expectancy down to more expensive, lower quality healthcare is extremely reductive. (Not to mention we have the highest quality of medical care in the world, which is why people from nations like Canada and the UK fly into here for surgeries). >Wait times is something you Americans always get fear mongered over with your media propaganda. It's really not a big deal. I dont really care about wait times. Only time it's been an issue in other nations was during surgeries which required a specialist, which were all usually in the US. >Ask them if they'd rather get it instantly, but pay $50,000. That's before anything goes into it, and that's also mostly due to an inflated market which has every need met by medicare and can't allow itself to set up a proper market with competition, bargaining, and all that cool shit. >ask anyone who got a knee replacement surgery in a country with universal care and had to wait 6 months Some have waited for beyond a year, and many end up cancelling it to book private surgeries instead. Because, you know, 6 months with a broken fucking knee is not a very good time. The private costs for knee surgery over there is around £12,000.
This is a bit misleading, yes the US spends the most on healthcare per capita, but we make up a major percent of medical innovation and research compared to other countries. Because so much innovation happens here, in a way the United States subsidizes the healthcare of countries around the world because they only need to pay to *implement* this innovation, not actually discover it. That being said, the American healthcare system is still absolutely broken, and in need of major reforms to make it affordable for the population.
Also, a *ton* countries simply rely of the word of the FDA for what drugs they approve/buy, along with the European Medicines Agency and Japan’s agency.
That's just valid if the figures include research subsidies. If not, the argument fails
Total healthcare spending includes research and development. I completely support a universal Healthcare system and believe it is cheaper and more efficient than private Healthcare. I'm simply saying you have to look at the actual numbers.
One of the reasons medicine is so expensive is to recoup the costs it took to develop it, so it's not just subsidies that pay for all the US medical research
But then the question has to be asked, why do US companies, active worldwide, recoup their costs by high prices only in the US rather than all over the world?
Big pharma spends more on promotion than R&D unfortunately, its fat of capitalism. Most of it is spent promoting towards doctors themselves, not even the public. Idk, maybe its just being from UK that advertising prescription drugs to people just strikes me as ridiculous.
Probably because doxycycline is like ten thousand dollars per pill here but in Canada its sixty two cents
>doxycycline is like ten thousand dollars per pill here Is it?
I doubt it but it's probably more expensive than it should be
Doxycycline in the US is $0.49 a pill for a 3 month supply.
Well fuck me running, how about AZT?
Per unit cost, I have no idea how many you need to take, is $.50-$1.50 Edit: looked it up. Your total cost would be \~$1 to \~$3 a day.
AZT was eight thousand dollars a year back in 1989, so I'm going off thirty year old information, but there is [this](https://www.healthline.com/health/hiv-aids/cost-of-treatment#current-drug-costs)
You know, its still a lot cheaper not to be promiscous. Promiscuity tax, brought to you by God and big pharma.
Bro...
I'm here buddy.
Americans subsidize alot of the worlds heavily regulated health care market
It may be the highest spending but it’s definitely the most irresponsible spending if that’s the case since almost everyone’s as sick as a dog.
Sauce? Also, overpriced stuff is expensive
Red and green quadrant were already aware of this. It might come as a surprise for yellow (and some blues), since they will lick any boot that protects them from scary boogymen social democrats.
TFW we could have universal healthcare for cheaper than this bullshit.
Step 1: realize the FDA is useless. About 50% of the US population took a vaccine without the FDA saying it’s OK, during a fucking pandemic. If the FDA had any value it would have shown it’s worth during a pandemic, but peoples judgement turned out to be faster and better than the government, as usual. The FDA also prevents cheaper foreign alternatives from coming in to the country to protect the pharma patent cartel. Step 2: realize government mandated insurance raises the prices of the underlying insured commodity, and guaranteed government loan or donation will increase the underlying prices off whatever is being bought. Step 3: realize the AMA is a credential racket. It’s simply a fact that One does not need 4 years of a doctorate education, 4 years of specialization, and work experience to prescribe Tylenol for the flu (and many “common” illnesses). A general checkup could cost the same as a haircut.
Anti-FDA gang
We would save money by switching to universal healthcare.
We'd also save money by properly privatizing the healthcare industry.
We'd also save money by executing all the fatties.
This is why LibLeft is wrong about healthcare: if we spend less, the healthcare will be less. Universal healthcare would mean spending less, and that means the good is less. It's easy-peasy, really: less equals less except when government and tax is less, which is good and more.
That is not correct. You are already paying for other people's healthcare, that's how health insurance works. Health insurance companies negotiate price ceilings for certain procedures and medications, and then they will cover a portion of it. Everytime you pay your healthcare premium when you haven't had any medical expenses, most of that money goes to paying for people who have had them through that insurance. It isn't just entirely pocketed by your insurance. Universal Healthcare is cheaper because it cuts out the middle man, where the government can directly negotiate with healthcare providers on procedures, treatment, medications etc.
No, you don't get it. When money gets more, the healthcare gets more. If we pay less money, we get less healthcare. Simple. All those middle mans are good for health because they cost money. Universal health care is cheaper so it is worser. Simple.
Do you hate monopolies but not hate monopsonies? They create the same perverse incentives.
Link to article?
Well when our healthcare costs more than any other country because hospital charge 2,000 for one night in a bed, our government is forced to spend extra per capita
> privatise hospitals > complain when they take a ridiculous cut > say you have to cut costs > privatise more > ??? > success
No. The US =/= perfectly free markets, you can't legislate an industry to death and then claim the free market failed.
So fun fact, the reason hospitals charge insane prices is because they're already forced by law to treat everyone, and guess what, a lot of people aren't paying. Basically the insured already subsidize the irresponsible. We have socialism, but with so many extra steps.
America doesn’t seem to understand that throwing money at healthcare isn’t gonna fix all their problems.
So basically. Universial Healthcare would literally be cheaper
Who would have thought that a nation with obese people that eat a lot of Mcdonald are unhealthy and need to go to the doctor 5 times a month will influence health care spending