High US health care spending explained by its high material standard of living

No hope at all? If I were underinsured or uninsured, I would still have the option of working to get the insurance I need. If I couldn't afford it, I could still ask others to fund me if they were feeling charitable. Overall, there would still be options. Lack of wealth is not an insurmountable barrier.

Insofar as the best doctors are concerned, they are pretty much all here in the US. Everyone who matters specializing in my illness is in the US. When I lived abroad, I saw a doctor specializing in my illness and the level of knowledge they had relative to the specialists I've seen in the US was laughable. The only medical care I've had abroad (I've lived on three different continents in my life) that was comparable cost as much as healthcare in the US.

There may be a few countries that are exceptions in terms of the socialized medical care available, but I would be surprised if any were as genetically heterogenous as the US or had a population even 1/5 of the US.

One of the main problems in the US is that there isn't a clear way to compare health insurance policies. You can't exactly go out and say, I want health insurance that covers the 90% of the most likely issues I'd most likely be afflicted with for one price or choose one that covers 99.99% of the things for another price. That lack of comparability and enforcement of payout is what lacks. If these features existed in the market, it would be possible to find insurance at $50 a month all the way to $500 a month. Transparency and comparability would make the market function much better. Something that covers 90% of the things that could go wrong is already way way way better than whatever the richest could afford 50 years ago.

Your point about Canada is only worthwhile if another country exists where you want to be treated. If the US socialized medical care and ended up with a system comparable to Canada, all of a sudden that option wouldn't be all that useful because you've lost the best market in the world for providing care that Canada can't.

The US subsidizes everyone research on behalf of all people in other countries. Maybe the rest of the world can find it in their heart to help those in the US that lack healthcare instead of lecturing us on how our system is broken when it already does so much for medical progress for the entirety of humanity.

Something like 95% of all drugs developed are developed in the US. I went to a university where many of my colleagues went on to join companies that were creating the most advanced medical textiles available, such as artificial aortas and whatnot.

What percent of new medicines and treatments developed are developed in the UK? How does that compare to the US?

I don't know, and the UK may not even take a dominant role here (as the commercial research infrastructure is very likely to be different). We'd also have to account for the fact that a lot of drug development goes into drugs that do not provide any novel treatments, but merely exist because somebody wants a share out of a big market (e.g., Viagra alternatives) or to find a replacement drug that can be patented to sell in lieu of a drug where patent protection is running out (which doesn't work too well in countries with reference pricing, but reference pricing is still uncommon in the US, and the US practice of prescription drug advertising doesn't help, either).

In any event, if you want to make such a claim, it's up to you to support it. I was merely pointing out that your argument is fairly incomplete as it stands. It doesn't even address the question whether it may be due to economic clustering effects or a superior bioscience infrastructure in America; after all, if selling drugs in the US were so profitable and that was the cause of research, that would also spark research in other countries.

>> No hope at all? If I were underinsured or uninsured, I would still have the option of working to get the insurance I need. If I couldn't afford it, I could still ask others to fund me if they were feeling charitable. Overall, there would still be options. Lack of wealth is not an insurmountable barrier.

What if you had a disease that left you unable to do that? Physically, mentally? You can't work, you don't know people, now what? Why should society deem that life not worthy of saving because of an illness and a bank account balance? It's not civilized. Why should these people depend on the charity of a few individuals and not distribute that burden across society as a minimum guarantee?

>> One of the main problems in the US is that there isn't a clear way to compare health insurance policies.

IMO it doesn't make sense to. You can't know what kind of disease you'll get or when. How can you choose to exclude cover for a broken leg? Are you planning on walking extra carefully, or buying special boots? And why settle for a 90% plan to prop up the health insurance industry when you can give everyone the 100% deal?

>> Your point about Canada is only worthwhile if another country exists where you want to be treated.

The way I see it, it goes one of two ways. (1) everyone has socialized medicine, the doctors are equally distributed but you can still find them [no passionate doctor worth their salt will just pack their bags up rather than treat everyone] or (2) one or more countries exist where they congregate due to lack of socialized medicine, and you're free to travel there if you find the home country offerings unsuitable.

Also, many of the best hospitals anywhere in the world are in Germany, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc.

>> The US subsidizes everyone research on behalf of all people in other countries.

The US government subsidizes the research heavily (as do foreign countries) it's not re-invested proceeds. [1]

[1] http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/who_pays

Oh give over, without the R there is no D.