politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Why do American leaders hate the health of their citizens so much? Seriously, the multi-generation political opposition to universal health care (or even anything getting close) is obscene. The US spends 2x as much on healthcare as peer nations (about 40% of that excess on admin and pharma) in order to have 220 billion in citizen medical debt. I'm assuming that's with Obamacare btw, much less without guaranteed insurance for high-risk patients.
The suffering and the debt is the point. It makes people compliant workers, and there is massive profit being made off of human suffering. The United States is fundamentally an immoral nation being propped up by the stupidity of the white evangelical working class.
You'd be astonished how much of a money printer companies like Pfizer, UHC, Cigna and Aetna are... and they have enough money that they can buy an awful lot of politicians. Obama care itself is fucking awful - it's way better than what we had before - but it enshrined the ridiculous grift based economy we use for health services.
These companies should not exist.
Thing is, they don't need to buy an awful lot of politicians. Republicans are already on their side because Republicans are assholes. They only need to buy just enough Democrats.
Facts don't matter, money and cost savings and health don't matter. Only the maintenance of social, economic, racial, religious and gender hierarchies matter.
People are definitely going to cover the political, corrupt reasons but one historic reason is that we didn’t have the destruction of WWII in the U.S. Britain’s National Health Service was created in 1946. Germany’s was created during the war in 1941. In many ways, WWII is what created the conditions for universal healthcare in Europe.
In the U.S., we never had an equivalent crisis and so we basically have a non-system made out of kludges and duct tape. There’s no one government program but instead, several programs that were meant to be reforms but just added to the mess. To quote the Census:
And in the end, 92% of people end up covered. It might be shitty coverage and no one likes the mess of programs but sometimes, it takes a true crisis like WWII to make radical reforms.
Bear in mind that guaranteed insurance isn't the balm you may think it is. Insurance companies make substantial profit off of denying claims. The USA will continue to have worst-in-show health care until/unless we get rid of private health insurance entirely.
I totally agree. In another portion of this thread I talk about how unethical it is that healthcare professionals have to argue/plead with profit-motivated insurance companies to be allowed to properly care for their patients. For what it's worth, it may be that hybrid systems (public and private with universal guaranteed coverage) work best - e.g. Germany and Singapore. The very simplistic TL:DR is that private is allowed to exist as additions to universal public, but is regulated by the government and must make profit within the bounds of those regulations (as opposed to free market maximized profit). Everyone is guaranteed excellent care via very careful government intervention/standards. It's hard to get right, but can result in private efficiency at public prices.
One word: Abortion.
Evangelicals control the Republican Party, and there's never enough votes for real reform without the Republican Party.
Because it is called Obamacare. If you ask if they approve of the Affordable Care Act, support is much higher.
It is the same thing people. Stop calling it Obamacare and start using ACA or Affordable Care Act. Obamacare is not is name.
They're too busy funding other country's wars.
The US spends more on healthcare because it spends more on everything. I don't think people have a good sense of how much Americans consume even compared to their peers in other rich countries.
If you plot healthcare consumption per capita versus individual consumption per capita, you can see that the US is on the trend line. Americans are not spending inherently differently from Europeans, despite the differences in healthcare systems. They just have more of everything, including healthcare.
The only source I found for the graph you linked is some guy's anonymous blog post. I only skimmed the article because I'm not reading the MANY pages' worth of text from an unreviewed, unpublished source. I'm open to new ideas, but I want better sources. Harvard's School of Public Health tells me that US healthcare is the most expensive in the world and that's a problem. For a primary source, here's a study published in JAMA that concludes, "The United States spent approximately twice as much as other high-income countries on medical care, yet utilization rates in the United States were largely similar to those in other nations. Prices of labor and goods, including pharmaceuticals, and administrative costs appeared to be the major drivers of the difference in overall cost between the United States and other high-income countries." Similar utilization rates = people are not getting significantly "more" healthcare for their significantly more money.
I read some of that blog but gave up after a few minutes because I hate the premise - just because the US is rich does not make it ok that US healthcare is more expensive per capita and as a % of GDP. Given how critical healthcare is to quality/length of life, I believe it can only ethically be a guaranteed safety net - not an industry that excludes. It's not ok to charge people higher prices for a life-defining procedure that would be cheaper elsewhere for profit's sake and justify it by saying there are enough wealthy people to keep the system going.
Inserting for-profit insurance means companies charge what they can to be maximally profitable, which prices out the poor and leads to the problem we see where healthcare is almost a luxury. The free market means not everyone can afford luxury cars and that's ok, but it has no place in determining whether everyone can access to "luxury" healthcare. It also complicates health care at a detriment to patient wellbeing - a great example is doctors having to get approval for life-saving/improving procedures from a corporation motivated by wealth. I try not to be close-minded, but it's going to take far more for me to ignore criticisms from credible sources and the realities of medical bankruptcy or people scared to get an ambulance ride because of personal cost.
Just look at the Wikipedia page on List of countries by household final consumption expenditure per capita. Americans consume much more than anyone else on the world, and it's not even close. Americans even consume at a higher level than the "ultra-rich" countries that exceed it in GDP per capita, e.g. 30 percent more than Luxembourg (which is number 2 on the list)!
This covers all forms of consumption, in which healthcare is only a fraction. The discrepancy is so great that it can't be explained by US healthcare being expensive. It's the other way round, it's healthcare consumption that is being pulled along by the rest of the consumption.
That is just restating the argument. There's nothing new in that response and I addressed the flaws of the idea that a richer country should = more expensive health care. It's not as if healthcare costs have some inherent reason to increase along with wealth. As an analogy, paying 50 dollars for electricity while earning 1k/month doesn't justify paying 5,000 for the same electricity usage while making 100k/month - it's 50 dollars' worth of electricity either way. Most glaringly, if healthcare is priced based on what the market will bear it excludes/punishes many folks by making care more expensive (as a %) the further down the ladder you are. It's the market model you'd expect for an optional product, not a life-defining essential.
US citizens aren't even getting "more" for the extra cost. The JAMA article I posted states that a) Americans utilize healthcare at largely the same rate as cheaper countries and b) the extra cost is primarily due to increased pricing of labor/goods and administrative expense. Expensive privatized healthcare resulting in huge amounts of medical debt is a solvable industry-created problem that the USA's peer countries have reduced or avoided entirely. If a Canadian and American live near the border, on average the Canadian pays half as much per year (link here again for convenience), is guaranteed coverage, and lives 3 years longer than the American a few kilometers away. While life expectancy is undeniably decided by multiple factors (certainly more than just healthcare quality), we can say for sure that Americans are not getting appreciably more frequent health care nor are they living longer than their neighbors for all that they pay double.
Well, there are several big reasons. For example, doctors and nurses in the USA have much higher pay than those in Europe. Part of this is because of policy differences (e.g., the supply of US doctors is artificially restricted by the AMA). But part of it is simply that educated professionals are paid much more in the USA than in Europe, and it's nothing specific to healthcare.
The point is that when making comparisons between US and other rich countries, the first thing you have to do is to account for the fact that Americans (i) have higher GDP per capita, and (ii) have higher levels of consumption even after compensating for GDP per capita. That should be the first-order effect, with stuff like the public-versus-private issue as second-order effects.
I do agree with the benefits to the US not being proportional to the cost, to a point. Lots of healthcare spending goes into things that don't really benefit aggregate outcomes, like heroic interventions that end up extending end-of-life by a few months, or treatments that only benefit one-in-a-million conditions. But this is not just an issue for the US; for example, the UK spends 18x on healthcare per capita compared to Thailand, for 2 extra years of life expectancy. And those individuals who get their lives extended by a small amount, or get their rare condition treated, may have different views on the matter.
Doctors are paid more, but still a small slice of healthcare costs. Doctors in the US working entirely for free would barely make a dent. All administrative costs, including doctors and nurses salaries, but also our bloated health care administration, add up to 8%. A lot of the extra administration costs are also things like all the staff needed just to interface with the giant mess of different payers including multiple private and government programs, all with different documentation and billing requirements.
The insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, medical device and equipment companies, and private equity owners of hospitals and practices who are all reaping windfall profits at the expense of patients love to direct the blame to doctors though.
Doctor salaries do not account for the 550 billion dollar pharma industry or the 1.7 trillion dollar health insurance industry. As a comparison, Canada's health industry is 112 billion USD. The USA's population is 8.4x greater, 8.4x112 billion = 940 billion instead of 1,700 billion (1.7 trillion).
Canadian doctors earn 3rd most in the world, around 200k/year. US doctors earn about 117k more a year. There are just over a million doctors in the USA = about 117 billion dollars which brings the cost from 940 billion to 1.057 trillion instead of 1.7 trillion.
I don't give a damn about GDP/consumption and have explained why in detail. You keep on saying the same thing, but you're not going to convince me that US healthcare should be more expensive to the tune of 700 billion/year because Americans buy more electronics, vehicles, etc. Especially given that wealth inequality means there's a huge variance in what people can afford.
With regards to pharma, other developed nations pay less than 1/3rd for the same medicine, which nullifies any inherent cost argument. Americans pay much more for medicine just because of allowed corporate greed.
I acknowledged that there's more to life expectancy than cost of healthcare, but we don't need to compare the UK to Thailand. We can compare the US to Canada, New Zealand, Germany, Japan, Korea, etc to see that it's more expensive and yet does not extend American life expectancy past that of cheaper countries. If you read my links, you'll see that the US has low doctors per capita, and high avoidable deaths per 100k when compared to peer nations - proof that Americans are not getting more for their money.
In order for your point about heroic interventions etc. to be valid in a US vs. other developed nations argument, you'd have to prove that the other countries are not saving their citizens (otherwise it's a wash, with both groups saving seriously ill patients). Not only would the US have to be saving their citizens where others don't, but they'd have to be doing so in large enough quantities to skew national statistics.
Even if experts agreed that the US system was great, I'd disagree because I can see the real-world end results. It's not ethical that doctors have to argue/plead with profit-motivated insurance accountants to properly treat their patient. It's not ethical when a seriously ill/wounded patient in a hospital is trying to figure out how they are going to deal with medical debt/bankruptcy that's going to leave them impoverished.
However, I don't need to worry about that dilemma because experts are not fans of the US for-profit system. As I've provided several links to prove, both economists and medical professionals regularly publish criticisms of the USA's expensive, under-performing healthcare.