[deleted]
US spends most on health care but has worst health outcomes
81–90 of 134 posts
Re: US spends most on health care but has worst health outcomes
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is an extremely popular liberal talking point. I do not believe it to be true. The article linked below has it at 60/40. But that's just a simple yes/no survey. When you probe the 40, they are mostly for it too, just with extreme reservations. Talk to some. It's definitely not an 'I got mine, let everyone else die' as is painted. https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/3826215-57-percent-sup...
You don't believe it to be true based on what? The fact that it's an extremely popular liberal talking point, or some actual data?
The actual data is closer to 1/3 against than 1/2. Nothing more is usually collected than that vote.
I don't believe, even given revised data above, that even 1/3 are against it. I'd estimate less than 1/5 are against it no matter what. The remainder has doubts and conditions, a given considering how awful government projects usually go. If I thought healthcare would be run like the DMV, I'd vote against it too.
Re: US spends most on health care but has worst health outcomes
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
France increased healthcare spending by 0.3%/year between 2010 and 2019. UK is outpacing France's spending increases by 2,066%. How does the UK need over 20x more spending increases than its close neighbor, exactly?
In 2017 (a year for which I have statistics) France spent 25% more per person on healthcare than the UK. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthan...
The initial claim was that healthcare was being "starved", I don't think 20x more than their neighbors in spending increases is "starved".
Besides, in 2019, the difference was 4% on a per capita basis -- according to World Bank figures. [1] [2] Probably reflecting the massive difference in spending increases.
Given the NHS' planned spending increases from now until 2025, it is very likely the UK will overtake France altogether. NHS spending plans to 2025 that are already agreed outpace inflation by 6 billion pounds.
[1] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.PC.CD?locat...
[2] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.PC.CD?locat...
Re: US spends most on health care but has worst health outcomes
#84"To catch up with other high-income countries, the administration and Congress would have to expand access to health care, act aggressively to control costs, and invest in health equity and social services we know can lead to a healthier population." The U.S. has the highest rate of people with multiple chronic health conditions... and the highest obesity rate... I think they are seriously missing something. Obesity…
That is why the problem is intractable. The very way of life, the lot sizes houses are on, the paved earth in all 4 directions are at the root of the problem, and there is no fixing that on a US wide scale. And people like that lifestyle, they like their individual, huge cars and huge (relatively) houses and huge parking lots and huge roads and huge food and drink portions.
Trying to fight that in a democracy will take a long, long time.
Re: US spends most on health care but has worst health outcomes
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That we are all overweight is another. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_obesity_r... Obesity vs overweight (the former is surely a better predictor of health outcomes anyway) aside, we’re definitely higher than comparable nations, but I wouldn’t say significantly so.
Definitely an interesting read, though I'd counter that 30% higher in the US than in the UK feels significant (36.2% versus 27.8%).
For extra context, the UK has a higher rate of obesity than any EU country. So the US is a definite outlier amongst advanced economies.
Re: US spends most on health care but has worst health outcomes
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Doctors aren't paid when you are healthy Isn't it worst that doctors are paid if you are not healthy? Doesn't it create an incentive for them to prevent you from being completely healthy? Anyway, most countries in Europe pay their doctors regardless of you health status and that money comes out directly of taxpayers' pockets whom most of them are 100% happy to make it that way
But doctors in Europe are paid a pittance in comparison. Like less than a third or even a quarter of US wages. That's the real issue - they will never want to take a hit to living standards. It was possible in the UK because it was directly after the war and the Blitz had killed hundreds of thousands of people, and there was a real threat of communism. Whereas the USA is nowhere that situation today. Things are going…
> But doctors in Europe are paid a pittance in comparison. Like less than a third or even a quarter of US wages.
I'm not sure that comparing absolute amounts between countries makes a lot of sense. And doctors would still likely be in top 1% to 5% also in Europe.
Re: US spends most on health care but has worst health outcomes
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Who in the hell is against it? Roughly half the country is against it! And ironically, it's often because they want "choice" in their medical care, despite the fact that health insurance is tied to your employment and you barely have any choices under your control anyway -- you go with the clinic or hospital that takes your plan, and you go with the doctor that's available.
It's such a complete lie that our current system confers any advantages whatsoever. It's a line trotted out by insurance lobbyists, then politicians, then shitty news media, and finally by the poor brainless voters themselves. If Americans had any international perspective at all it would be much harder to keep that fiction alive, but Americas generally are completely ignorant of how people live outside the us, and n…
The US has lower wait times and substantially better cancer treatment than most comparison countries, including Canada and the UK. Entire categories of specialist cancer treatment are simply not available in Canada.
No advantages whatsoever? That would be a plausible argument if Canadians didn't seek treatment in the US in record numbers, growing by over 20% a year.
Re: US spends most on health care but has worst health outcomes
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm a conservative also. Stuff that basically everyone needs to deal with should be out of pocket with tranparent ahead-of-time pricing. Doctors and occasional specialists, non-exotic meds, normal chronic conditions, etc. State covers/helps it if you can't (means testing with sliding scale, no cliff). Paying for stuff kinda sucks, but less so than brutal waste pulled out of your paycheck or taxes. Financially major i…
> but less so than brutal waste pulled out of your paycheck or taxes. Are you suggesting that universal systems are more wasteful? Wouldn't that imply that a simple natural experiment of total healthcare spending vs average health outcomes should show a benefit to private over universal/tax funded?
In the US a lot of tax dollars are wasted on healthcare. A lot more would be wasted if we tried some kind of universal health care in the US.
Re: US spends most on health care but has worst health outcomes
#89It comes down to a few issues:
a) The USA pays more for drugs than the rest of the world does. b) private health insurance is really inefficient. c) The US doesn’t do public and preventative health very well. d) The US wastes money overtreating rich people and undertreating poor people more than other countries. e) The US does a bunch of expensive and more importantly counterproductive end-of-life care than other countries. f) The US pays its doctors more than other countries because the supply is artificially restricted and governments don’t push back like they do elsewhere.
Re: US spends most on health care but has worst health outcomes
#90>the system is bad Doctors aren't paid when you are healthy. How would you suggest fixing such a system? Because if you figure it out, there's a whole system of auto mechanics that could probably benefit from the solution.
Oops, I meant to reply to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34674371 and here I am replying to the main thread, lacking context. My mistake.