3 ms·

> Universal healthcare would cost a minimum of $3.6 trillion (that's an ideal scenario where the US gets its per capita spending down to other high spending nat

> Universal healthcare would cost a minimum of $3.6 trillion (that's an ideal scenario where the US gets its per capita spending down to other high spending nations) Mmm. No. In 2016, government spending on healthcare would have been lowered by $435 billion and covered every single American if we somehow had transplanted Canada's healthcare system and costs to the US. Total healthcare spending (including co-pay and what not), would have been lowered by $1.6 trillion. Indeed, we could have increased to coverage to every American just with the government healthcare spending we already have with a similar transplant of all but 3 countries systems/costs the OECD collects data for. That said, that would all be taken right out of the GDP hitting the economy pretty hard. -- US Federal healthcare spending (2016): $944.1 billion US State & local healthcare spending (2016): $564.5 billion Total gov spending (2016): $944.1 + $564.5 = $1.508 trillion Canada govt spending (2016): $3,319 per capita US population (2016): 323.4 million Cost with Canada's system (2016): $3,319 * 323.4M = $1.073 trillion

mercutio2 8y ago
“If we somehow transplanted Canada’s healthcare system and costs” Get back to me when you’ve convinced US healthcare workers to take a 30-50% pay cut. Until then, US healthcare will remain more expensive than developed countries that don’t routinely compensate doctors and nurses at the level we do.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- aaroninsf 8y ago
  This is incorrect. The cost of care in this country is not a function of salary; it's a function of grotesque inefficiencies in the system. When I dug into this during the attempt to repeal the ACA, what I found was the US pays 50% to many times more per capita for much worse outcomes than any other first world nation, with comparisons against Japan being particularly bleak. Furthermore, that is the result of systemic inefficiencies here resulting from, in a nutshell, protected oligopolies and preservation of profits. One underreported aspect of the ACA was that in order to secure recalcitrant GOP votes, the Democrats essentially caved on everything other their mandatory features–namely, on allowing the GOP to engineer in changes written by the health care industry and IMO extorted at gunpoint. The result has been clear, the industry has enjoyed record profits since the ACA passed. So much so that one of the problems with the attempt to appeal it or weaken it was that the GOP and its industry interest groups had already gotten most of the things on their wish list. The worst part of this trainwreck is that for much more money, we enjoy far worse outcomes when you consider most any metric that matters to people: life expectancy, infant mortality, incidence of chronic disease, incidence of disruptive mental illness, incidence of opiate addiction, and so on. In all of these we trail not only the rest of the first world but many countries in the developing world. There are other factors such as a diet and lifestyle distorted by e.g. the sugar lobby, but even when you 'correct' for those things, the quality of service we get does not make for healthy or happy citizens. Then add the likelihood of personal bankruptcy or financial ruin as the result of carefully engineered carefully obscured limitations on coverage. None of this is particularly hidden or hard to uncover; it's just utterly obscured by GOP empty distracting whipping horse talking points and scare tactics.
  - mercutio2 8y ago
    What part of your comment is responsive to “total cost of healthcare is dominated by labor” other than “that is incorrect”? There are, of course, inefficiencies in every system, and without a doubt, the US system of health care has more than universal health care. We might be able to shave 10% off the health care system by doing away with those inefficiencies, and conceivably another 5% by bulk negotiating on pharmaceuticals. But given the (I believe correct) statistics that are bandied about showing the US healthcare system is 50-75% more expensive than other systems, where do you think the rest of that money is going? It’s labor.
  - aaroninsf 8y ago
    In the news today: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/398967-us-tops-list-of-most-dangerous-places-to-give-birth-in http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/398967-us-t...

mercutio2 8y ago

“If we somehow transplanted Canada’s healthcare system and costs” Get back to me when you’ve convinced US healthcare workers to take a 30-50% pay cut. Until then, US healthcare will remain more expensive than developed countries that don’t routinely compensate doctors and nurses at the level we do.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
aaroninsf 8y ago
This is incorrect. The cost of care in this country is not a function of salary; it's a function of grotesque inefficiencies in the system. When I dug into this during the attempt to repeal the ACA, what I found was the US pays 50% to many times more per capita for much worse outcomes than any other first world nation, with comparisons against Japan being particularly bleak. Furthermore, that is the result of systemic inefficiencies here resulting from, in a nutshell, protected oligopolies and preservation of profits. One underreported aspect of the ACA was that in order to secure recalcitrant GOP votes, the Democrats essentially caved on everything other their mandatory features–namely, on allowing the GOP to engineer in changes written by the health care industry and IMO extorted at gunpoint. The result has been clear, the industry has enjoyed record profits since the ACA passed. So much so that one of the problems with the attempt to appeal it or weaken it was that the GOP and its industry interest groups had already gotten most of the things on their wish list. The worst part of this trainwreck is that for much more money, we enjoy far worse outcomes when you consider most any metric that matters to people: life expectancy, infant mortality, incidence of chronic disease, incidence of disruptive mental illness, incidence of opiate addiction, and so on. In all of these we trail not only the rest of the first world but many countries in the developing world. There are other factors such as a diet and lifestyle distorted by e.g. the sugar lobby, but even when you 'correct' for those things, the quality of service we get does not make for healthy or happy citizens. Then add the likelihood of personal bankruptcy or financial ruin as the result of carefully engineered carefully obscured limitations on coverage. None of this is particularly hidden or hard to uncover; it's just utterly obscured by GOP empty distracting whipping horse talking points and scare tactics.
- mercutio2 8y ago
  What part of your comment is responsive to “total cost of healthcare is dominated by labor” other than “that is incorrect”? There are, of course, inefficiencies in every system, and without a doubt, the US system of health care has more than universal health care. We might be able to shave 10% off the health care system by doing away with those inefficiencies, and conceivably another 5% by bulk negotiating on pharmaceuticals. But given the (I believe correct) statistics that are bandied about showing the US healthcare system is 50-75% more expensive than other systems, where do you think the rest of that money is going? It’s labor.
- aaroninsf 8y ago
  In the news today: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/398967-us-tops-list-of-most-dangerous-places-to-give-birth-in http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/398967-us-t...