Hiku said:
DarthVolod said:
For one, let's start by understanding that American healthcare habits and uses are different than their European counterparts. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/07/why-do-other-rich-nations-spend-so-much-less-on-healthcare/374576/
Yes, Americans pay more for healthcare overall but that is for a multitude of reasons, and basically all of them can be tied back to government meddling. The phenomemon of employer provided insurance that many Americans are forced to utilize, for example, has its origins in tax law from the 1940s. Government institutions like the FDA and the AMA control the supply of doctors / care providers as well as which drugs do or do not make it to market (while also raising the costs significantly to produce drugs ... thus making so called greedy pharma companies jack up prices).
Remove this interference (and assuming the ACA is repealed) and create a true free market for healthcare and prices would drastically fall. Competition will reduce costs; just as it does for any other sector of the economy where it is allowed to exist.
You mentioned a number of apples to organges lists that compare the U.S. (a geographically large and ethnically diverse nation) to the likes of the U.K., Switzerland, Norway etc. (geographically small and incredibly ethnically homogenous nations). Wouldn't it make more sense to compare the U.S. on overall social progress / human rights / etc. with countires like China, Brazil, India, Indonesia etc? Population does matter on these lists as health care is just one amoungst other factors.
The reality is that Americans have different priorities and most would rather not experience sharp increases in income tax just for a universal healthcare system they may not even need (many of uninsured prior to the ACA were either young / healthy, or in a position to easily afford care; even still you had emergency hosptial room visits / etc and other options for the truly destitute).
As for the supposed utopian universal healthcare systems seen in U.K. , Canada, many European countries, etc. There is an often unreported ugly side to universal converage in the form of wait times as a result of rationed care in an effort to reduce costs: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2016-08-03/canadians-increasingly-come-to-us-for-health-care
This of course is not even getting into the moral argument about whether or not you have the right to steal from someone just because you don't like paying your medical bills. There is no such thing as free universal health care, someone is footing the bill somewhere. Americans have, historically, opted to not live in a tax hellscape where much of their income is funneled into terribly inefficient entitlement programs.
You get what you pay for, and even with the ugly mixed economy health care the U.S. has now, it is still preferable to high taxes and rationed low quality care. Especially when one considers how unhealthy and obese the average American tends to be, the idea of sitting on a waiting list to see a specialist becomes less and less appealing for the average person in the U.S.
|
There are proceedures in the rest of the world that occur more frequently there than in the US as well. But the point of the inquary was about the cost of the treatmnents. For example the 2.5 times as many MRI's that your article mentioned. Why does an MRI scan cost $1,080 in America and $280 in France?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/why-an-mri-costs-1080-in-america-and-280-in-france/2011/08/25/gIQAVHztoR_blog.html
That's much more of a glaring issue than the difference in occurance of treatments. And why in spite of spending 2-3 times more on healthcare, per person, Americans get so much less. Because the high prices are not an exception, but more of the rule.
The comparison to the UK would only be improper if USA couldn't spend at least as much as the UK per person, due to the population of the USA. But that's not the case at all, as USA spends not only as much, but almost three times as much. And gets a lot less for it.
You mention raise taxes, but they wouldn't even have to do that. They could spend significantly LESS than they are now, and get much more. But instead, they prefer to funnel most of it towards corporate profit, and allow pharma companies to set the prices without the governement even being able to negotiate them. And this cycle doesn't end as long as politicians keep voting in favor of their corporate donors who spend hundreds of milllions every year to get their way.
As for waiting times, that's not an argument against universal healthcare. Things simply work differently in different coutnries. The article you linked highlights a rare disease that required the search of a rare donor. People die from waiting for donors in the US as well even if they can afford it. But as another article points out "Kidney transplantation in Canada is limited by the availability of organs, not by financial constraints. "
In Sweden for example, waiting times between two cities can vary by years.
USA may be better in terms of transplant waiting times overall for all I know. But when we are talking about healthcare that is readily availavble, if it is something urgent, there's no waiting time. You get it done. It's not a matter of finances.
If you want to make an optional surgery to clear the airways of your nose for example, then yes you will have to wait more than you would if you paid to do it in the US. But that's a tradeoff most people gladly take.
As for the morality "stealing from someone", this is actually something the majority of people in USA want their taxes to go to, if you ask them about the actual policies instead of fearmongering.
Ex 1: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/sorry-republicans-but-most-people-support-single-payer-health-care/2017/04/17/f0919bb6-23a6-11e7-bb9d-8cd6118e1409_story.html?utm_term=.c63b5059e342
Ex 2: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/13/more-americans-say-government-should-ensure-health-care-coverage/
Unsurprisingly, most people know that even if they're not sick today, one day they or someone they love may be. And it's nice not have to worry about dying or going bankrupt because of financial issues if that happens. It's one of the better things we can spend our tax money on.
Now about the morality of it. And "stealing". Why do I have to pay for a bridge that I will never cross? A sidewalk I don't walk on? A library with books I won't read? A flower I won't smell, or art I can't appreciate? The salaries of politicians I did not vote for, a tax cut that doesn't affect me, or a loophole I can't take advantage of?
It's called a democracy. A civil society, the greater good. That's what we pay for.
Don't pretend that we don't already do these so called "thefts" for things that are much less important to us than healthcare.
The problem in USA is that much more money goes towards corporate profit, and the prices can't even be negotiated by the government, because the politicians are bribed to vote in their favor and spread fearmongering to keep this system intact. Except instead of "bribe" it's called an "extension of speech". Fully legal. And USA is the only nation on earth along with New Zealand where prescription drug ads are allowed to be shown on TV.
|
An MRI is more costly in America because the U.S. is experiencing the worst of both worlds. Heavy government interference (meaning that we can't have a true competitive healthcare market) but not so much government interference that there are price controls (which have their own consequences mind you, but do "reduce" or more properly shift the cost/price of the proceduce in a round a bout way).
There are really only 2 ways to reduce prices and only one of those two ways is viable long term. Either create an open free market for healthcare that internally regulates itself, or nationalized healthcare.
The nationalized option can only sustains itself in relatively small homogonized countries which themselves have advantages like being able to rely on the USA for their defense budget http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-19/are-nato-members-paying-their-fair-share-spoiler-alert-no. Even with those advantages, it was only by moving away from full bore socialism that nationalize healthcare poster children like the Scandanavian countries were able to survive https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/10/15/bernie-sanders-scandinavia-not-socialist-utopia/lUk9N7dZotJRbvn8PosoIN/story.html.
We can see glimmers a free market system in the U.S. like lasik eye surgery and plastic surgery which demonstrate the power of a free market to lower prices http://healthblog.ncpa.org/why-cant-the-market-for-medical-care-work-like-cosmetic-surgery/#sthash.QJbFCXUI.dpbs. The only problem is that this applies to a tiny fraction of the overall healthcare industry in America.
For urgent life saving care it is not a matter of finances to some extent in the U.S. either due to EMTALA. There are free and charity based clinics all over the U.S. as well for non life threatening matters. Charititable / voluntary options to help the truly misfortuned would be significantly higher if not for the effect of taxes on charitable giving http://opportunitylives.com/why-high-taxes-hurt-charities/
On to the morality which is the heart of the matter, you said:
"Now about the morality of it. And "stealing". Why do I have to pay for a bridge that I will never cross? A sidewalk I don't walk on? A library with books I won't read? A flower I won't smell, or art I can't appreciate? The salaries of politicians I did not vote for, a tax cut that doesn't affect me, or a loophole I can't take advantage of?"
I don't think you or anyone should have to pay for any of those things if you don't want to, and the fact that we waste money on other things does not make it right to steal and subsequently waste money on healthcare. I don't think we should be taxed to pay for any of the things you mentioned whether it be healthcare or defense or any of it.
As for your final point, let me repeat, the U.S. is in an ugly spot right inbetween a free market system and a socialized healthcare system. I don't like it, and you don't seem to like it either. We just fundamentally disagree on which direction to go from here.
