Politics
Asking
No Notifications
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

America spends $4.9 trillion on healthcare. Suppose the system CAN'T be fixed?



Photo above - Believe it or not, Hong Kong has the highest life expectancy on planet earth. Ten years longer than the USA. I've actually been to HK, and I don't believe it.


I’d love to live as long as they do in the UK. Their life expectancy is 81 years, 6 months. In the USA it’s only 79 years and 7 months. We are constantly reminded of this tragedy, and urged to demand change. (see worldometer link below). Yes . .. I do want that extra 23 months. As long as the government is paying for it with taxes on somebody else, or some corporation.

We are also told to demand lower healthcare costs. America spends $4.9 billion a year. Most of that already comes from the federal government: Medicare, Medicaid, VA healthcare and dozens of subsidiary agencies certifying everything from cough drops to covid 19 masks and vaccines. One third of our healthcare cost is paid by insurance companies. Only 10% of the cost comes out of my own pocket, as co-pays and deductibles. See “NHE fact sheet” link below.

Is there any reason to believe that turning the rest of healthcare over to the government is going to reduce costs? Washington (and the states) already have most of the pie. I’m pretty sure if we surrender all of it to the government, costs are likely to rise. This has been true of almost everything: pentagon procurement, education, weather forecasting, Amtrak . . . you name it.

I believe that if 100% of our healthcare was managed by the US government, the average US lifespan won’t increase by an any significant amount, but I’m not positive. Brits drive less, don't have guns, and when they drink to excess at a soccer match, they take the bus home. So there's that.

The biggest difference between Britain's NHS and America’s kaleidoscope of private and public hospitals is what doctors and nurses get paid. The average earnings for a US doctor are $100,000 higher than a Brit doctor. (Again, there's a link at bottom).

The reason we have to pay our doctors more is because a medical degree in America costs so much more. Harvard Med School is the gold standard - do you want to guess what THAT degree costs? This what people are screaming about: what if the Trump administration reduces research grants to punish ivy league colleges for rampant anti-semitism? Those places will have to charge EVEN MORE for tuition without government dollars.

Ok, not every doctor goes to Harvard. Personally, I have two doctors. One came from India, one from Canada. You see where this is headed? Physicians get educated at much lower cost – or for free – in many countries. Then a bunch of them migrate to the USA as soon as their contractual obligation to the motherland is completed.

Let’s revisit the headline. Suppose this expensive healthcare problem can’t be fixed? Or fixed in a way that doesn’t break something else. Do we want to put the government in charge of all hospitals, and all colleges? Build a wall to prevent migrant doctors from coming to work in the USA? Invest less on development of new drugs? In case anyone forgot, the US government spend $32 billion just one iteration of the Covid vaccine, then vaccinated almost everyone for free. The mortality rate from Covid 19 was identical in both the USA and UK, by the way. (see Wikipedia link below)

Which nation had the lowest Covid mortality? For many countries, the data is bat-shit crazy (pun alert). China claims only 85 deaths per million from the virus – about 2% what the UK and USA experienced. So let’s just look at numbers reported by honest democracies. Japan did the best. Their mortality rate was 10X higher than China though.

Fixing America’s broken healthcare system may depend on things people will object to – vehemently. The Guardian (link below) just published a study that exercise alone (not prescription drugs) was MORE effective in preventing the recurrence of cancer than any doctor prescribed pills and injections. Should this be a new US government mandate? No prescription coverage if you’re a couch potato, and getting door dash fried chicken, pizza tacos, and burgers every day?

I already get more exercise than the average American (or Brit). And I don't eat blood pudding, clotted cream, or steak and kidney pie. Am I going to live longer? Will I pay less? And does the USA want to make lifestyle rules by Presidential executive order, or laws passed by the senate?

I’m just sayin’ . . .


NHE Fact Sheet | CMS

Life Expectancy by Country and in the World (2025) - Worldometer

Doctor Pay by Country 2025

COVID-19 pandemic death rates by country - Wikipedia

Exercise ‘better than drugs’ to stop cancer returning after treatment, trial finds | Cancer | The Guardian
SusanInFlorida
31-35, F
28 replies 84 views Jun 2, 2025
Share Link
Top | New | Old
ArishMell · 70-79, M
I think social factors may be as important as finances - for example, the Mediterranean countries' typical diets are often touted as exemplars of health. (I do not know how true that is though, and without hard statistics it is easy to be swayed by stereotypes.)

Beyond mild limits such as on stopping manufacturers putting too much sugar and salt in processed food, and policies against encouraging smoking, trying to legislate on lifestyles would not be popular. It could even lead to people refusing to obey rather than choose by advice, just out of resentment at their personal choices being cramped.

[The UK's rules on tobacco products are that they must be sold only from lockable cabinets behind shop counters; and the makers must print lurid health-warnings on the packets. Other countries have similar, and I did not need know Spanish to understand the warning on a visitor's cigarette-packet I chanced to see. Yesterday "disposable vapes" became illegal to sell, as much to limit litter and fire risks as trying to persuade people not to become nicotine-addicts.]
+ 3 · Reply · Translate · Jun 2, 2025
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@SusanInFlorida I don't know of any country that has banned tobacco but some are trying to ease it out.

An unforseen consequence in the UK at least of making toabcco-free nicotine products to help people quit smoking, was a massive trade in brightly-coloured, fruit-flavoured vapours, and unscrupulous manufacturers in China and elsewhere push on-line sales of very strong (so very addictive) blends, with many aimed quite deliberately at children.
+ 0 · Reply · Translate · Jun 2, 2025
SusanInFlorida · 31-35, F
@ArishMell you raised an interesting question, so i googled it.

you are correct, ZERO countries have banned tobacco use. But 66 have banned advertising.

alcohol is banned in "many" muslim countries, according to Bing. As well as by tribal leaders in indigenous communities in Australia, Canada, and the USA. India famously has 10,000 villages (quote from the film Gandhi), and evidently a large number disallow any use of alcohol.
+ 0 · Reply · Translate · Jun 3, 2025
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@SusanInFlorida Thankyou for that research!

I knew of the Muslim countries' bans on alcohol but not within indigenous communities elsewhere. I wonder if some adopted it as an answer to widespread alcoholism.

New Zealand initiated a step-by-step rise in the mimimum age at which one can buy tobacco, so eventually you reach a stage where no-one takes it up. The previous UK government certainly thought it a good idea but as I don't smoke, and know hardly anyone who does (even "vapes") I am not sure if it was implemented here.

Many people I knew over the years, including my father, did smoke but the numbers generally have dropped considerably. There is a flourishing trade in nicotine-vapour products ("e-cigarettes") instead, but the disposable forms can no longer be sold in the UK, due to the littering problem, fire-hazard and environmental waste from them.
+ 0 · Reply · Translate · Jun 3, 2025
ElwoodBlues · M
Actually, Monaco has the highest life expectancy. The US doesn't make the top 25, although our neighbor Canada does.

[media=https://www.voronoiapp.com/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.voronoiapp.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F03594287-6286-4904-8223-f3bc9e94a064.webp&w=1080&q=85]

Is there any reason to believe that turning the rest of healthcare over to the government is going to reduce costs?
I notice the phrase "preventative care" never appears in your post here. The way government can help is by delivering better preventative care for zero or minimal extra cost. That's how it works in most developed countries. BTW, leaving all the important decisions up to insurance companies - who maximize profits by minimizing delivery of care - is letting the fox guard the henhouse.

As the data below shows, we are doing uniquely badly in both cost and life expectancy. That suggests we should look at changing what's unique in our system.

Note the graph goes 1970-2018.
Source: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy-vs-health-expenditure

UPDATE
Infant mortality in 2020
Source: https://ourworldindata.org/us-life-expectancy-low
+ 0 · Reply · Translate · Jun 3, 2025
SusanInFlorida · 31-35, F
@ElwoodBlues thanks for your extensive reply.

actually, almost all of most was about preventable factors: automobile use, obeisity, lack of exercise, drug use.

but thanks for pretending to have read it. I love my fans.
+ 0 · Reply · Translate · Jun 3, 2025
ElwoodBlues · M
@SusanInFlorida Canada has similar levels of automobile use, exercise, and drug use, and they are catching up in obesity. Canadians are the demographic most similar to the US population. And Canadians live about 3 years longer and pay roughly half what we in the US pay for the privilege.
+ 0 · Reply · Translate · Jun 3, 2025
SomeMichGuy · M
Is there any reason to believe that turning the rest of healthcare over to the government is going to reduce costs?

Yes.

Your essay seems to conveniently leave out that the Federal government has insurance companies as intermediaries to "administer" the health programs. I believe it was when Reagan was President that the law was changed to provide for HMOs, etc.

How did the idea that adding MORE bureaucracy, and making it for-profit, would SAVE money get traction? Oh, right...the insane notion that the market somehow solves problems efficiently (or at all).

The last time I checked, the US pays TWICE as much for healthcare as the [b]next-most-expensive country (Switzerland). [/b] But we aren't getting twice the healthcare.

So we ought to look into the best of those systems and move to a single-payer system with doctors in good standing determining treatment. Period.


Oh, and part of the reason for our lowered longevity here is that people have decided to accept rumor / YT vids over science, so they are now getting sick from controllable diseases because of radical views of personal freedom which violate the very views written in the Declaration.
+ 0 · Reply · Translate · Jun 3, 2025
SusanInFlorida · 31-35, F
@SomeMichGuy i can't help but point out that your rant comes without links or substance of any kind.

please note that when the Obama administration awarded a contract for the Affordable Care portal/website, it ended up being months less, and costing at least 5X more than the website for Amazon.

Oh . . . and the contract was awarded to a corporation where Michelle Obama's college roommate was a prominent executive.
+ 0 · Reply · Translate · Jun 3, 2025
Elisbch · M
Canadian Dr's come to the US for better pay. They do not get paid in Canada what they can here. They actually have a shortage of Dr's there currently.



Government-guaranteed health care for all citizens of a country, often called universal health care, is a broad concept that has been implemented in several ways. The common denominator for all such programs is some form of government action aimed at broadly extending access to health care and setting minimum standards. Most implement universal health care through legislation, regulation, and taxation. Legislation and regulation direct what care must be provided, to whom, and on what basis.

The logistics of such health care systems vary by country. Some programs are paid for entirely out of tax revenues. In others, tax revenues are used either to fund insurance for the very poor or for those needing long-term chronic care. In some cases such as the United Kingdom, government involvement also includes directly managing the health care system, but many countries use mixed public-private systems to deliver universal health care. Alternatively, much of the provision of care can be contracted from the private sector, as in the case of Canada and France. In some instances, such as in Italy and Spain, both these realities may exist at the same time. The government may provide universal health insurance in the form of a social insurance plan that is affordable by all citizens, such as in the case of Germany and Taiwan, although private insurance may provide supplemental coverage to the public health plan. In twenty-five European countries, universal health care entails a government-regulated network of private insurance companies.[1][2]


CEOWORLD Magazine's Health Care Index 2024
According to the 2024 edition of the CEOWORLD Magazine Health Care Index, Taiwan ranks as the country with the best healthcare system globally, with an overall score of 78.72. South Korea (77.7) and Australia (74.11) follow closely behind.

The index ranks 110 countries based on key factors such as healthcare infrastructure, the competencies of healthcare professionals (including doctors, nurses, and other healthcare workers), annual per capita healthcare costs in USD, availability of quality medicine, and government readiness to address health crises.

The ten countries with the best healthcare are:

Taiwan (78.72)
South Korea (77.7)
Australia (74.11)
Canada (71.32)
Sweden (70.73)
Ireland (67.99)
Netherlands (65.38)
Germany (64.66)
Norway (64.63)
Israel (61.73)
Source: CEOWORLD Magazine
Notice the US is NOT in this list.

Notably, the top ten includes three Asian countries and five European nations, highlighting the diverse ways healthcare systems are structured across the globe.

Taiwan, for instance, is known for its efficient single-payer system that provides universal coverage and emphasizes prevention. South Korea ranks highly due to its use of advanced technology in healthcare and a strong national health insurance program. Meanwhile, Australia’s ranking is supported by its excellent healthcare infrastructure and effective public health policies.

-----------------------

Very interesting article below:




SOURCE:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/14/magazine/universal-health-care-racism.html
+ 1 · Reply · Translate · Jun 2, 2025 · Edited: 6 days ago
SusanInFlorida · 31-35, F
@Elisbch thanks for your reply. good post.

i have never met a foreign trained doctor who came to the USA and it WASNT for higher income.

My mother's cardiologist (previously) was head of the state cardiology professional group. He said that's something he would never have been able to achieve in India, where caste and connections to politicians are essential.

America cannot return to the past where major corporations tried to deliver "free" healthcare to all employees. Even democrats don't want that. During the Obama administration there was a jihad on "gold plated health plans" like the one the UAW negotiated into their work agreements with the big 3. The (political philosophy) was that all employer health plans had to be equal.

this certainly is an odd position, coming from a congress with gold plated healtcare programs, and a president who gets a limo ride to Walter Reed Army Medical Center every time he sneezes.
+ 0 · Reply · Translate · Jun 2, 2025
ElwoodBlues · M
@SusanInFlorida says
The (political philosophy) was that all employer health plans had to be equal.
FALSE!!!

Obamacare - which is still in effect - is a set of regulations on health insurance that set minimums of care (plus a tax penalty for those who forego insurance). Obamacare doesn't set all insurance equal; it just sets the floor.

Prior to Obamacare there was a lot of low-cost do-nothing insurance. People wouldn't discover how little their policies covered until they were in dire straits. You can still buy gold-plated insurance with low deductibles, but those policies cost much more.
+ 0 · Reply · Translate · Jun 3, 2025 · Edited: 5 days ago
SusanInFlorida · 31-35, F
@ElwoodBlues that's entirely the problem. Nobody want's "the minimum standard of care" if they're actually sick. Not for

1. cancer
2. covid 19 infection
3. heart disease
4. auto crashes
5. birth defects
+ 1 · Reply · Translate · Jun 3, 2025
exchrist · 31-35
America spends 848 billion (2023 dollars) on "defense" and military spending each year, every year;! since at least vietnam and probably especially since and during ww2.
Therefore purely from that viewpoint the rest of the worlds healthcare spending and environmental hazards would be far less had America ever put its guns back in its holster.
Similarly, the fallout for veterans in terms of wounds, injury, and emotional trauma is lifetime. Math pending, but veterans have healthcare for life. So minimizing their trauma injuries and healthcare needs would be ideal.
Theres your answer 40+ years spending about 800 Billion a year on the military (and active fighting) (since 1964, at the least) is roughly 50years*$800B or about $40 trillion wasted on active war.
Now consider the healthcare APPROPRIATELY given to all veterans for the rest of their lives thats likely at least 1 trillion a year. So yea if America ever wants to dig out of this financial drowning. It has to end all this military spending. Save America bring the troops home!
+ 0 · Reply · Translate · Jun 2, 2025 · Edited: 6 days ago
Crazywaterspring · 61-69, M
Universal healthcare would be the cheapest and deliver the best results for the US. The oligarchs in Congress and their paymasters have determined that healthcare is not a human right.

Someone could tie healthcare to the military budget. Claim "national defense.". The there would be unlimited funding, deficits be damned (until the Democrats are allowed back into office.)
+ 4 · Reply · Translate · Jun 2, 2025
SusanInFlorida · 31-35, F
@Crazywaterspring if you have a link that supports this, we'd all love to see it.

how do you propose to deliver cheaper care without cutting salaries and curtailing investments in new medicines?
+ 0 · Reply · Translate · Jun 2, 2025
Roundandroundwego · 61-69
Lol. Sure, it's a total mystery how you do medical care in a socialist manner. (Sarcasm). You certainly don't know how! (Sarcasm ). You can't do it, there's no plan and no possible way. (Fact set in your moderate and conservative stone(. Your impressive death rates impress me and make me smile. - fact.
+ 0 · Reply · Translate · Jun 2, 2025 · Edited: 6 days ago
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
meJess · F
More money seems to be the only answer politicians have rather than actually look at making the current spending more effective
+ 2 · Reply · Translate · Jun 3, 2025
iamthe99 · M
The system can be fixed. Trump does not want to fix it (not that he knows how anyway).
+ 1 · Reply · Translate · Jun 2, 2025
SusanInFlorida · 31-35, F
@iamthe99 i don't block people for failed attempts at thread hijacking. only for offenses like

1. homophobia
2. anti-semitism
3. misogyny
4. personal insults with no attempt to engage on the post topic.

do your best, and I will be happy to review.
+ 0 · Reply · Translate · Jun 3, 2025
iamthe99 · M
@SusanInFlorida Fine, but I'm only pointing out that the system is eminently fixable. But Trump does not choose to as he is interested in enriching only himself and his inner circle.
+ 0 · Reply · Translate · Jun 3, 2025
SusanInFlorida · 31-35, F
@iamthe99 you ranted. but no substance or links. i provided links. try to play by the rules.
+ 0 · Reply · Translate · Jun 3, 2025
 
Post Comment