3 ms·

The issue is relative efficiency. If I spend $500 more on treatment X in US vs. another country, that money is paying a healthcare employee, but the employee is

The issue is relative efficiency. If I spend $500 more on treatment X in US vs. another country, that money is paying a healthcare employee, but the employee is also "paying" with their time. A more efficient system that needs less employees frees up other people to contribute to the economy in more ways. All of those extra people health insurance companies employ because they can get away with it would get other jobs and hence increase the total productivity. The same argument applies to bloated costs of equipment. If a surgical sponge is $500 vs. $10 elsewhere, i doubt the added benefit justifies the extra $490. That $490 is coming out of someones pocket and its a complete waste. This graph [1] also shows the same story. The return on investment measured by life expectancy in the US is pathetic. The extra money is just not helping... so its either being misused or stolen, probably both. https://ourworldindata.org/the-link-between-life-expectancy-and-health-spending-us-focus#life-expectancy-vs-health-expenditure-over-time-1970-2014ref https://ourworldindata.org/the-link-between-life-expectancy-...

ptaipale 10y ago
One difference is that the U.S. system gives a lot to the people who pay a lot. Rich people have access to the most advanced cancer treatments in world, for instance. But child mortality is relatively high among poor people (which is a shame on US.). Of course, this is indeed bad for efficiency, if you consider health outcomes vs. spending. And inequality: wealthy people live longer. But then there are questions of fairness. Elsewhere, in a so-called welfare state where I live, all children get very good care and child mortality is low, but for instance, when I consider myself - a fairly well-to-do person although not wealthy by US standards - I pay a lot to the system but it gives me very little attention. No regular health checks that are normal in the US for people who have a health insurance through employment, no screenings for cancer (women get several types of specific screenings but men do not). (We use 9 % of GDP to public health, vs. 17 % in the US.) I know that the care is quite good if I run into a life-threatening situation, but with smaller trouble such as broken bones or a pneumonia, I'll be prioritized down after drug addicts who have a more serious condition that they have inflicted themselves. And they never contributed to the system which tells me to go to a private clinic. Fortunately the social problems resulting in non-contribution are still quite small, but an increasing number of people are not giving anything and are consuming more and more of the resources.
- JoeAltmaier 10y ago
  Men get prostate screenings. And why is a broken bone not 'self-inflicted'? Maybe a bad example. "...an increasing number" - citation?
  - ptaipale 10y ago
    No screenings for men here.

ptaipale 10y ago

One difference is that the U.S. system gives a lot to the people who pay a lot. Rich people have access to the most advanced cancer treatments in world, for instance. But child mortality is relatively high among poor people (which is a shame on US.). Of course, this is indeed bad for efficiency, if you consider health outcomes vs. spending. And inequality: wealthy people live longer. But then there are questions of fairness. Elsewhere, in a so-called welfare state where I live, all children get very good care and child mortality is low, but for instance, when I consider myself - a fairly well-to-do person although not wealthy by US standards - I pay a lot to the system but it gives me very little attention. No regular health checks that are normal in the US for people who have a health insurance through employment, no screenings for cancer (women get several types of specific screenings but men do not). (We use 9 % of GDP to public health, vs. 17 % in the US.) I know that the care is quite good if I run into a life-threatening situation, but with smaller trouble such as broken bones or a pneumonia, I'll be prioritized down after drug addicts who have a more serious condition that they have inflicted themselves. And they never contributed to the system which tells me to go to a private clinic. Fortunately the social problems resulting in non-contribution are still quite small, but an increasing number of people are not giving anything and are consuming more and more of the resources.

JoeAltmaier 10y ago
Men get prostate screenings. And why is a broken bone not 'self-inflicted'? Maybe a bad example. "...an increasing number" - citation?
- ptaipale 10y ago
  No screenings for men here.