2 ms·

> whatever little amount of money on The US has been spending the most globally, in real terms per capita[0] and a percentage of GDP[1] on healthcare for a lon

> whatever little amount of money on The US has been spending the most globally, in real terms per capita[0] and a percentage of GDP[1] on healthcare for a long time. How on earth can you justify the phrase "little amount of money"? The problem wasn't the amount spent. The problem was the terrible hybrid of regulations that let the private sector down crazy rabbit-holes of false value to chase and be paid for, instead of just direct exposure to the real health market's needs. [0] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.PC.CD?end=2023&most_recent_value_desc=true&start=2000&view=chart https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.PC.CD?end=2... [1] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.GD.ZS?most_recent_value_desc=true https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.GD.ZS?most_... (technically three massively smaller economies contribute more as a % of GDP, but that's off a crazily lower base)

vlovich123 1y ago
Reading comprehension is important. Correct. The US as a country spends a lot more on health care than if there was a government-run single-payer system. I'm responding to this: > while laughing at them for not spending the money on social niceties. The US government doesn't pay for the "social nicety" of health care & in fact makes more money since that dues to private insurance industry generates even more tax revenue. You can claim it's the regulations but all evidence I've read suggests it's the lack of single-payer system which removes the ability to negotiate + increases the complexity of the system because as a provider you have to pay more people to manage insurance payments with all the different providers vs 1 central provider.