5 ms·
> As much as everyone loves to complain about drug companies and insurers as being responsible for high US health care costs, that is not where the money goes.
by sli 5y ago
> As much as everyone loves to complain about drug companies and insurers as being responsible for high US health care costs, that is not where the money goes. The money goes to doctors and to hospitals. (Specifically: about half of all national health spending to those two groups.)
A big part of the problem is where the money comes from, not just where it goes. People are less averse to doctors being paid well than they are being stuck with absolutely ridiculous bills that they cannot reasonably pay, which should go without saying.
This is why so many people want to rich taxed much more heavily and that money used to subsidize healthcare, instead of the current trend of handwaving the wealthy as "not having liquid assets," something that never seems to matter when a wealthy person wants to pay for something expensive but suddenly matters when the working class wants the IRS to come knocking. If they need to dump stock or some other assets to pay their tax bill, that's their own problem and not anyone else's. It's also something that could be willfully avoided on their own accord.
That $768B "defense" budget is absolutely nauseating in the face of medical debt being one of if not the largest cause of bankruptcy in the US.
- rafale 5y ago$768B is a great deal for not being under a russian or Chinese hegemony and world philosophy. Freedom comes before universal healthcare.
- huitzitziltzin 5y agoYou will be delighted to learn of the existence of (inter alia) - France - Japan - Australia - Great Britain - Finland - Taiwan - New Zealand - South Korea - and many more! All countries which do not spend anything like what we do on defense, are not under Chinese or russian domination, AND nearly all have longer life expectancy than we do while at the same time spending much much much less on a per capita basis on health care than the US does.
- lp0_on_fire 5y agoEach one of those countries you listed _heavily_ relies on the United States military being on their side in the event of a war. You can't make the argument you're making without at least acknowledging US hegemony (which we can argue is good or bad).
- huitzitziltzin 5y agoTotally agree with you! Sounds like the found a smart way to reduce their defense budgets, no??
- s1artibartfast 5y agoAnd The US gets something from it as well. They get political backup from their coalition and the ability to project hard and soft power from most of these countries. This of course leads to financial return on investment from this military expense
- sfifs 5y agoThe biggest benefit US gets from its massive millitary is that the Dollar is the de-facto global reserve currency and energy is priced in dollars. This makes debt essentially free for the US government (since the demand for dollars and dollar denominated tresury bonds remains high). It also enables strategic energy and reaource extraction companies from US to essentially get their way in most places.
- triceratops 5y agoIn a war, I'd bet on a France-UK-Germany alliance against Russia any day. Ditto for a South Korea-Japan-Taiwan-India alliance against China. They might not win but they're strong enough to keep from being pushed around.
- lp0_on_fire 5y ago> They might not win but they're strong enough to keep from being pushed around. Emphasis on "They might not win". Which is exactly why they rely on US support in the event of one of those scenarios - it increases their chances of winning by a lot.
- 908B64B197 5y ago- Japan - Finland - Taiwan - South Korea I've got bad news for you. The reason these countries even still exist today is the US defense budget. Out of the rest you named, France is the only one capable of projecting force on a world-wide scale. There's a reason previous administrations tried to get other NATO countries to increase their spending: it's not cheap to keep footing the bill for everyone else!
- sofixa 5y agoI see about South Korea and to an extent Taiwan ( one might argue Taiwan is not a country), but care to elaborate on Japan and Finland? Either if you assume that without the US the Soviets would have conquered both after WW2, the Soviet Union no longer exists, and all constituent countries are now independent.
- GauntletWizard 5y agoAnyone arguing that Taiwan is not a country is not arguing in good faith, unless they're making the joke that the Republic of China still has sovereignty and will one day suppress that nasty uprising.
- sofixa 5y agoPrecisely, it's complicated. Nobody recognises Taiwan as an independent country and they don't really claim to be one; some small countries recognise the Republic of China as the China, but the vast majority including the UN, count the PRC as the China, and nominally the island of Taiwan is a part of China. Of course, for most intents and purposes Taiwan is an independent country, but them declaring it as such or anyone recognising it would piss off the PRC, who still view it as a part of a unified China. The civil war ended 70 years ago, they should let it go, but that's easier said than done.
- Gortal278 5y ago> All countries which do not spend anything like what we do on defense, are not under Chinese or russian domination, AND nearly all have longer life expectancy than we do while at the same time spending much much much less on a per capita basis on health care than the US does. They are under US domination, though we call it Hegemony. The 2% of national budget spent of the defense of these countries is not holding the geopolitical balance of power in check. Infact these counties would need to pay much more without the US.
- jevoten 5y ago$768B is a parasitic drain on your economy that is accelerating the rate at which China is overtaking the US. The Soviet Union collapsed in great part because they could not keep up economically. The same is happening to the US now. Besides, that $768B is spent on military operations for all sorts of purposes, not just "freedom". Fat defense contractor margins are another big chunk.
- psadri 5y agoThe problem in the US is the individuals don’t pay for regular medical care - your insurance does. And that insurance is usually funded by employers. So doctors and hospitals have every incentive to squeeze the insurance companies as much as possible (which pass on those costs to employers). We’d be in a completely different situation if people paid for regular medical care out of pocket and paid for their catastrophic insurance by themselves. There’d be competition between health care providers to offer affordable care directly to individuals, just like other normal markets.