By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Why the U.S. pays more for health care than the rest of the world

areason on 06 May 2017
SvennoJ said:
areason said:

If people buy insurance all of their lives and not when they become old then they will not have issues. You can check if people have a healthy lifestyle by a simple blood exam, it isn't hard mate. 

What insurance companies to evaluate individuals has nothing to do with the system, so does your car insurance. 

Sounds rather intrusive to me. If the government wants to track people like that everyone gets up in arms about it. Yet for insurance companies it's fine? Most people don't get private insurance until they're old since they're insured through work. Not sure what the solution is to that. Old people are or are quickly becoming the biggest burden on the system. The better healthcare gets, the bigger the drain of an ageing population.

Canada is still relatively young compared to other countries. Japan is already at 25% seniors.

At what point can insurance companies say, sorry you're too old to insure or charge over $600 a month per person 64 or older. I even found a rate for $1719 a month for age 85 (in good health, non smoking) from 2011. Isn't it the purpose of society to protect its weaker members?

Another observation. A lot of conservatives are very much against abortion. Yet taking care of children with pre-existing conditions is also a sin...

A lot of countries show universal healthcare works without the need of intrusively tracking the population. Why can't the greatest country in the world figure it out :)

I'm not sure how the system works in America, but generally speaking if you have been insured all of your life then you can continue working with that company as you already gave it (indirectly) enough money to cover your costs. 

Universal healthcare is rationing, supply is limited, doctors get badly paid (which results in lower quality healthcare), and overall it is an unnecessary burden on our budget. Goverment based healthcare will not work to keep prices as low as possible, they will simply put that on the taxpayer. And at the end of the day people will get taxed for it. 

I don't see how conservatives or abortions fall into this. 

Society is falling in debt due to it's oldest population (France,Uk,US). Things like social security and pensions are outdated and flawed systems which do not get funded by the individuals history of paying taxes but by current tax payers. The US goverment doesn't have the budget to pay for universal healthcare. 

Personally i would go for a private system, but with medicare on the side in order to help the less fortunate. 



Around the Network
Zkuq on 06 May 2017
areason said:
Zkuq said:

1. Do you really think only people risking their health suffer from a capitalistic healthcare system? And possibly even more importantly: Do you think the people are actually to blame for their condition? They sure have some responsibility for their condition, but there's always other things affecting people's choices too. I bet growing up in a bad environment results in a much higher chance of unhealthy choices, but how far can you really blame the affected people for that?

Adults are mature enough to be able to make their own choices. Also their exists many support systems which helps people with addcition, weight less and so on. If you look at something like smoking and all the efforts their are to help smokers, it is 100 percent the fault of someone if they get lung cancer due to it. 

2. Prices fall only if the competition forces them to fall. In practice, there doesn't usually seem to be too much pressure for dropping prices, which results in prices staying high. Businesses try to maximize their profits, so they keep the prices as high as possible.

If you have regulations, that hurts competition. In a free market competition will make prices fall as companies try to offer the best service for the least price possible. Maximizing profits isn't about keeping a high price, it's about decreasing the costs. 

3. Also, I'm pretty sure I've heard similar times that those 'conditions' you mentioned include several conditions which people can do pretty much nothing about, or can do nothing about after the conditions have been diagnozed. Those people can't even do much about their situation, even if they tried. How do you take care of them? Are they not supposed to get any healthcare?

If people buy insurance in the first place then they will not get denied due to having conditons, as they will already be part of the system. This is how insurance works, you cover up your inevitable disease or conidition by years of being healthy. 

If someone get's into an inevtiable car accident due to someone else, their is nothing they could do. But they could have bough car insurance, the same princple goes with healthcare. If people can not afford to get insured that is another topic, but when individuals wait till they get sick in order to get insured then they should suffer the consequences. 

1. Come on, that's not even remotely true. That's not how the human mind works. It's affected so easily by countless things that depending on environmental factors, accumulated during the whole life, it might be really easy or really hard to make correct decisions. Even your example about smoking is completely flawed because smoking is designed to be addictive. You can maybe blame people for trying it out in the first place, but after that, it's really, really hard for a lot of people - significantly harder than starting smoking. If anyone's responsible there's, it's the companies for making it easy to start but really difficult to quit.

2. Maximizing profits is exactly about maximizing profits. Companies have no other incentive to lower prices than maximizing profits (either in the short term or the long term). Companies in general have no other incentive to do anything than maximizing profits. If they see keeping prices high as a way to maximize profits, they'll do it - and it seems that quite often they're right in doing so.

3. What about people born with conditions? And what do you suggest as the solution to the people that can't afford insurance? If insurance is your solution to healthcare, you must also have the solution for those that can't afford it. Otherwise your solution is quite flawed. Also, considering you seem to think it's very stupid for pretty much everyone to not have an insurance, do you really think anyone should even be exempt from paying for healthcare? After all, practically everyone wants healthcare when they're sick, but only people that are smart enough and doing well enough financially actually want to and can pay for it.



Barozi on 06 May 2017

haha wow I knew the costs for health care in the US was high, but $3.2 trillion a year is insane



S.T.A.G.E. on 06 May 2017
Barozi said:
haha wow I knew the costs for health care in the US was high, but $3.2 trillion a year is insane

Overinflation of the cost of goods, the size of the population (for a first world nation) a falling dollar and the overall GDP. Its highly explainitory, but we have geniuses out there who can cut costs for the common man. The problem is....Wallstreet pays them to work for them. Lobbying is a huge part of it as well. Its private interests vs the people.



Mr Puggsly on 06 May 2017

Given the video is primarily about drugs, some blame the FDA for limiting competition.



Recently Completed: 
River City: Rival Showdown for 3DS (3/5) - River City: Tokyo Rumble for 3DS (4/5) - Zelda: BotW for Wii U (5/5) - Zelda: BotW for Switch (5/5) - Zelda: Link's Awakening for Switch (4/5) - Rage 2 for X1X (4/5) - Rage for 360 (3/5) - Streets of Rage 4 for X1/PC (4/5) - Gears 5 for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

Around the Network
SvennoJ on 06 May 2017
areason said:

I'm not sure how the system works in America, but generally speaking if you have been insured all of your life then you can continue working with that company as you already gave it (indirectly) enough money to cover your costs. 

Universal healthcare is rationing, supply is limited, doctors get badly paid (which results in lower quality healthcare), and overall it is an unnecessary burden on our budget. Goverment based healthcare will not work to keep prices as low as possible, they will simply put that on the taxpayer. And at the end of the day people will get taxed for it. 

I don't see how conservatives or abortions fall into this. 

Society is falling in debt due to it's oldest population (France,Uk,US). Things like social security and pensions are outdated and flawed systems which do not get funded by the individuals history of paying taxes but by current tax payers. The US goverment doesn't have the budget to pay for universal healthcare. 

Personally i would go for a private system, but with medicare on the side in order to help the less fortunate. 

I don't really know how it works in the US either. From the website I found it seems your rates go up as you get older
Health Insurance rates go up as a policyholder gets older
https://www.valuepenguin.com/how-age-affects-health-insurance-costs
And that's with the ACA in effect, so that it's capped at 300% for 64 and older. (stopping that $1700 a month I found from 2011 for 85+)

As for the bolded, costs are lower in countries with universal healthcare. And doesn't medicare get put on the tax payer as well? It seems the privatized system costs more to insurance holders, and to the tax payer because of medicare having to go along with that high cost system.

From Google
The average income after expenses, in U.S. dollars, for an orthopedic surgeon in the U.S. was $442,450, compared to $208,000 in Canada. Do you think that $208k a year is badly paid and Canadian surgeons provide lower quality healthcare? Well perhaps, since the smart ones move to the US after receiving their education here.



Rab on 06 May 2017
areason said:

Universal healthcare is rationing, supply is limited, doctors get badly paid (which results in lower quality healthcare), and overall it is an unnecessary burden on our budget. 

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-39826777/is-trump-right-about-australian-healthcare



Pemalite on 06 May 2017
areason said:

Universal healthcare is rationing, supply is limited, doctors get badly paid (which results in lower quality healthcare), and overall it is an unnecessary burden on our budget.

Except examples from all around the planet have proven without a doubt that is false.

Universal healthcare hasn't shown that Doctors get badly paid, resulting in lower quality care.

Nor is it more expensive (Often it's actually cheaper than the US system!) resulting in less of a burden on the budget.

areason said:

Goverment based healthcare will not work to keep prices as low as possible, they will simply put that on the taxpayer. And at the end of the day people will get taxed for it. 

Yet. Government based healthcare systems all around the world tend to be cheaper than the US system on a per-capita basis. So your argument is without basis.

areason said:

Society is falling in debt due to it's oldest population (France,Uk,US). Things like social security and pensions are outdated and flawed systems which do not get funded by the individuals history of paying taxes but by current tax payers. The US goverment doesn't have the budget to pay for universal healthcare.

The United States used to have the mentality that it could do anything, you used to be a shining example to the world on what other countries could aspire to be like.

And it still can. Also not all debt is bad debt. And not all countries are the US, UK and France.

Your country wastes so much money on frivolous things, cut back on those and support the people in your own nation first.

areason said:

Personally i would go for a private system, but with medicare on the side in order to help the less fortunate.

Basically the complete opposite of the dozens of countries with Universal Healthcare systems which are lower in cost on a per-capita basis and have higher quality levels of care? Where is the sense in that reasoning? You have been taking the opposite approach for decades/centuries. It clearly hasn't worked has it? Time to throw it into reverse and take a different approach.

Australia has a Universal Healthcare system, it works.
If you exceed a certain tax bracket threshold then you have the option of getting private healthcare... But you aren't required to. If you don't opt for Private healthcare then you need to pay an extra tax.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

S.T.A.G.E. on 07 May 2017
Pemalite said:
areason said:

Universal healthcare is rationing, supply is limited, doctors get badly paid (which results in lower quality healthcare), and overall it is an unnecessary burden on our budget.

Except examples from all around the planet have proven without a doubt that is false.

Universal healthcare hasn't shown that Doctors get badly paid, resulting in lower quality care.

Nor is it more expensive (Often it's actually cheaper than the US system!) resulting in less of a burden on the budget.

areason said:

Goverment based healthcare will not work to keep prices as low as possible, they will simply put that on the taxpayer. And at the end of the day people will get taxed for it. 

Yet. Government based healthcare systems all around the world tend to be cheaper than the US system on a per-capita basis. So your argument is without basis.

areason said:

Society is falling in debt due to it's oldest population (France,Uk,US). Things like social security and pensions are outdated and flawed systems which do not get funded by the individuals history of paying taxes but by current tax payers. The US goverment doesn't have the budget to pay for universal healthcare.

The United States used to have the mentality that it could do anything, you used to be a shining example to the world on what other countries could aspire to be like.

And it still can. Also not all debt is bad debt. And not all countries are the US, UK and France.

Your country wastes so much money on frivolous things, cut back on those and support the people in your own nation first.

areason said:

Personally i would go for a private system, but with medicare on the side in order to help the less fortunate.

Basically the complete opposite of the dozens of countries with Universal Healthcare systems which are lower in cost on a per-capita basis and have higher quality levels of care? Where is the sense in that reasoning? You have been taking the opposite approach for decades/centuries. It clearly hasn't worked has it? Time to throw it into reverse and take a different approach.

Australia has a Universal Healthcare system, it works.
If you exceed a certain tax bracket threshold then you have the option of getting private healthcare... But you aren't required to. If you don't opt for Private healthcare then you need to pay an extra tax.

Rationally speaking, it sounds rational to tell an American that it makes sense to have Universal healthcare if they are in a certain tax bracket, but sometimes they will make $30-40k a year and will still fight you about wanting private healthcare while they are raising a family.



monocle_layton on 07 May 2017
bonzobanana said:
So if your parents on very low money and no insurance with a child of 5 with cancer that needs very expensive treatment what happens? Would that child not get treatment through no fault of its own and simply die?

Even some dictatorships have reasonable free at the point of delivery health care.

Yea, they'd die. Not like they care about children once they're born. Reminds me of George Carlin's famous quote he once said 

 

"These conservatives are really something, aren't they? They are all in favor of the unborn, they will do anything for the unborn, but once you're born, you're on your own! Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that they don't want to know about you, they don't want to hear from you . . . no neo-natal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing! If you're pre-born, you're fine. If you're pre-school, you're fucked."