3 ms·

tl;dr: US spends so much more than other nations because US hospitals (and by extension, doctors, which NYT is too chicken to say out loud), keep increasing pri

tl;dr: US spends so much more than other nations because US hospitals (and by extension, doctors, which NYT is too chicken to say out loud), keep increasing prices for the same care. There is nothing here about insurance companies. It's lack of competition on the supply side.

throwaway5752 9y ago
No, it is not a supply side problem. Why do you thing that? Compare the US system to other systems' cost of care and providers per capita.
tomjakubowski 9y ago
There's no competition at all on the supply side in Canada or Taiwan. Why are their health care costs microscopic compared to the US?
- jernfrost 9y ago
  They are more regulated. More use of max prices, more standarization. US hospitals can charge whatever they want and hide it.
- pishpash 9y ago
  Because a large single payer fixes prices for most people.
  - tobylane 9y ago
    Most? Could you specify how someone loses out?
    - nybble41 9y ago
      Shortages, as with any price ceiling—when someone is willing and able to pay more but there is none available at the fixed price.
phnofive 9y ago
> [M]ost of the explanation for American health spending growth [...] is that more is done for patients during hospital stays and doctor visits, they’re charged more per service, or both. Regarding Single/All Payer: > If attempted nationally, or even in a state, either of these would be met with resistance from all those who directly benefit from high prices, including physicians, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies — and pretty much every other provider of health care in the United States. They don’t seem shy about laying the blame where they feel it belongs.
- pishpash 9y ago
  If they aren't shy they would have put that in the first paragraph instead of beating around the bush for the entire article, and also not immediately hedged to say high prices isn't all bad/can't do anything about it because "limits."
  - phnofive 9y ago
    I'll be honest, I didn't read most of the rest of the article until I found their conclusion. It's at least falsifiable, even if we have different definitions of shy.

throwaway5752 9y ago

No, it is not a supply side problem. Why do you thing that? Compare the US system to other systems' cost of care and providers per capita.

tomjakubowski 9y ago

There's no competition at all on the supply side in Canada or Taiwan. Why are their health care costs microscopic compared to the US?

jernfrost 9y ago
They are more regulated. More use of max prices, more standarization. US hospitals can charge whatever they want and hide it.
pishpash 9y ago
Because a large single payer fixes prices for most people.
- tobylane 9y ago
  Most? Could you specify how someone loses out?
  - nybble41 9y ago
    Shortages, as with any price ceiling—when someone is willing and able to pay more but there is none available at the fixed price.

phnofive 9y ago

> [M]ost of the explanation for American health spending growth [...] is that more is done for patients during hospital stays and doctor visits, they’re charged more per service, or both. Regarding Single/All Payer: > If attempted nationally, or even in a state, either of these would be met with resistance from all those who directly benefit from high prices, including physicians, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies — and pretty much every other provider of health care in the United States. They don’t seem shy about laying the blame where they feel it belongs.

pishpash 9y ago
If they aren't shy they would have put that in the first paragraph instead of beating around the bush for the entire article, and also not immediately hedged to say high prices isn't all bad/can't do anything about it because "limits."
- phnofive 9y ago
  I'll be honest, I didn't read most of the rest of the article until I found their conclusion. It's at least falsifiable, even if we have different definitions of shy.