3 ms·

That number is shocking. I'd love to know details. Can you provide a source please?

rweir 6y ago
Just the US value from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_hea... vs #2 (Switzerland) is $US800 000 000 000 for all US residents in extra spending.
- marcusverus 6y ago
  I'm confused by these data. It's common knowledge that the US spends much more per capita on Healthcare, however the commonly offered explanation for this is that the private healthcare system in the US is less efficient than the public systems in Europe. But the graph in the provided link shows that US costs are split evenly between private spending and public spending. This is confusing because the private system in the US covers twice as many people as the public system. Per the US Census Bureau: "in 2018, private health insurance coverage continued to be more prevalent than public coverage, covering 67.3 percent of the population and 34.4 percent of the population, respectively."[0] If the provided data are correct, this would indicate that US private spending is nearly twice as efficient as public spending. What am I missing? [0]https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2019/demo/p60-267.html https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2019/demo/p60-26...
  - entropicdrifter 6y ago
    The current laws restrict the government healthcare programs from negotiating on e.g. drug prices, so the manufacturers name whatever absurd prices they want and the US Gov just pays it. Just another corrupt government giveaway to the private sector.
  - rendang 6y ago
    The gov't portion includes basically everyone over 65 via Medicare, who have a disproportionate share of healthcare needs.
IanCal 6y ago
It's reviewed occasionally, here's a few links This was the original article I saw when it was $700B: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/09/how-the-us-health-care-system-wastes-750-billion-annually/262106/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/09/how-the-u... More recent one, I thought it was $950B but this puts it at $760-935B. The potential savings are lower but still in the low hundreds of billions. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2752664 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2752664 I originally started thinking about "how do we understand large numbers" when I saw the article as I think I had roughly the same emotional reaction as I would have done if the number was $70B. Most "big number" comparisons go to things like "dollar bills up to the moon" or "swimming pool full of X" which only gets across "this is a big number". I found comparing it to other enormous projects was hard even as if you take out the US contribution to the LHC you don't move the needle, so you need to then cover all countries costs, then the full project budget for all years and you're still left with almost the entire figure left.

Just the US value from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_hea... vs #2 (Switzerland) is $US800 000 000 000 for all US residents in extra spending.

marcusverus 6y ago
I'm confused by these data. It's common knowledge that the US spends much more per capita on Healthcare, however the commonly offered explanation for this is that the private healthcare system in the US is less efficient than the public systems in Europe. But the graph in the provided link shows that US costs are split evenly between private spending and public spending. This is confusing because the private system in the US covers twice as many people as the public system. Per the US Census Bureau: "in 2018, private health insurance coverage continued to be more prevalent than public coverage, covering 67.3 percent of the population and 34.4 percent of the population, respectively."[0] If the provided data are correct, this would indicate that US private spending is nearly twice as efficient as public spending. What am I missing? [0]https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2019/demo/p60-267.html https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2019/demo/p60-26...
- entropicdrifter 6y ago
  The current laws restrict the government healthcare programs from negotiating on e.g. drug prices, so the manufacturers name whatever absurd prices they want and the US Gov just pays it. Just another corrupt government giveaway to the private sector.
- rendang 6y ago
  The gov't portion includes basically everyone over 65 via Medicare, who have a disproportionate share of healthcare needs.

IanCal 6y ago

It's reviewed occasionally, here's a few links This was the original article I saw when it was $700B: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/09/how-the-us-health-care-system-wastes-750-billion-annually/262106/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/09/how-the-u... More recent one, I thought it was $950B but this puts it at $760-935B. The potential savings are lower but still in the low hundreds of billions. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2752664 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2752664 I originally started thinking about "how do we understand large numbers" when I saw the article as I think I had roughly the same emotional reaction as I would have done if the number was $70B. Most "big number" comparisons go to things like "dollar bills up to the moon" or "swimming pool full of X" which only gets across "this is a big number". I found comparing it to other enormous projects was hard even as if you take out the US contribution to the LHC you don't move the needle, so you need to then cover all countries costs, then the full project budget for all years and you're still left with almost the entire figure left.