3 ms·

There are a ton of reasons why, but here are a couple of the big ones. The US is still at the forefront of medical research and technology development in the w

There are a ton of reasons why, but here are a couple of the big ones. The US is still at the forefront of medical research and technology development in the world. However, many other countries won't pay "market" rates for newer technology developed here at home, so companies often overcharge domestically as a way to recoup revenue they can't collect in other places. Note that American hospitals (particularly newer ones) tend to be obsessed with having state-of-the-art technology, and they're damn sure gonna get paid for that. Another major factor driving healthcare costs is the increasing barriers to access for millions of people. Lots of folks don't realize this, but the US already has a quasi-socialized healthcare system mandated through Federal law. Basically, it's illegal for hospitals to turn ER patients away that cannot prove ability to pay, so folks without insurance often come to the ER for routine medical treatment because its the only way they can be seen, and they know the hospital isn't going to chase them down for their bill because they can't pay for it anyway. Who winds up eating those extra costs? Folks with insurance. I used to work in an ER and I saw this happen all the time.

ivan_gammel 4y ago
Do you have any data proving those points? Both are highly questionable from economic PoV. USA is not doing the majority of research, for sure (e.g.EU does a lot too), and it’s not that expensive. Besides that, drugs and equipment are not the only cost drivers. In other countries those who cannot pay for the insurance get it from the taxpayer money, basically the same redistribution just called differently. This does not explain why in USA costs are much higher than in countries where redistribution is codified in the law.
- Omniusaspirer 4y ago
  The data on biotech and pharmaceutical patents per nation is easy to look up and firmly supports the parent posters point- Google is your friend here. Your second point is a false equivalency as from a private payor perspective the cost of providing care to the indignant is reflected on their localized hospital bill, not on their federal taxes. In struggling rural/inner city hospitals the majority of payors don't cover the cost of the care received (and that includes medicare/medicaid patients), which means hospital bills will be highest in poor regions despite higher rates of federal coverage/subsidy.
  - ivan_gammel 4y ago
    > firmly supports the parent posters point- Google is your friend here. Well, you need to change your search engine, because DDG could help you finding this report: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866602/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866602/ 42% of innovations for 40% of GDP of innovating countries isn’t exactly majority. UK and few other countries are more inventive than USA in relative numbers and the rest of the world - more in absolute numbers. On second point thanks for clarification. So, if I understood it correctly, it means that this redistribution model is inefficient, because it creates two tier insurance system, with hospitals serving as second tier insurance. This even sounds crazy.

ivan_gammel 4y ago

Do you have any data proving those points? Both are highly questionable from economic PoV. USA is not doing the majority of research, for sure (e.g.EU does a lot too), and it’s not that expensive. Besides that, drugs and equipment are not the only cost drivers. In other countries those who cannot pay for the insurance get it from the taxpayer money, basically the same redistribution just called differently. This does not explain why in USA costs are much higher than in countries where redistribution is codified in the law.

Omniusaspirer 4y ago
The data on biotech and pharmaceutical patents per nation is easy to look up and firmly supports the parent posters point- Google is your friend here. Your second point is a false equivalency as from a private payor perspective the cost of providing care to the indignant is reflected on their localized hospital bill, not on their federal taxes. In struggling rural/inner city hospitals the majority of payors don't cover the cost of the care received (and that includes medicare/medicaid patients), which means hospital bills will be highest in poor regions despite higher rates of federal coverage/subsidy.
- ivan_gammel 4y ago
  > firmly supports the parent posters point- Google is your friend here. Well, you need to change your search engine, because DDG could help you finding this report: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866602/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866602/ 42% of innovations for 40% of GDP of innovating countries isn’t exactly majority. UK and few other countries are more inventive than USA in relative numbers and the rest of the world - more in absolute numbers. On second point thanks for clarification. So, if I understood it correctly, it means that this redistribution model is inefficient, because it creates two tier insurance system, with hospitals serving as second tier insurance. This even sounds crazy.