Topic: The Real Problems with American Healthcare - page 3. (Read 852 times)

Totally. Any OECD health data shows the same trends and health spending issues with the US, but apparently to many the answer for the US is to do more of the things (ie. privatizing healthcare) that make them an outlier in health spending, instead of doing more of the things that would make them more like the rest of the world!

I used to do policy development work in this space (not in the US though) and was always bemused by the US system, and the language and apparent unwillingness of many in the US to let the Government get more involved in healthcare. From an outsider looking in it always ended up a name calling match with shouts of 'socialist healthcare!' that don't actually mean anything in practice. It's a real shame and people's health outcomes and money keep going to waste.

So let me get this right. You're saying that because the US Government is in the pocket of private interest groups, that the answer is to do what they want by the Government doing even less, as because if they did more they would be so meek and powerless against these groups that their legislation would end up helping them?

That makes no sense. There is a difference between implementation issues and policy issues. What you are describing is an implementation issue whereby Government efforts get railroaded by private interest groups who hold too much influence in the US political system. An implementation issue doesn't mean that a policy idea or funding model is conceptually bad. It doesn't mean the idea of Government having a greater role in how healthcare is provided and funded in the US is a poor model. It is a good model as that is what happens in pretty much every other developed country, which again, have better, more efficient and less costly health systems.

If the US Government is so weak that they can't legislate to put the health needs for their citizens ahead of the profits of private companies, then that says a lot about the country.

It might have something to do with many users here being young and healthy. When you're using healthcare 15 minutes a year (if that) it might seem better to fork out $200 for that doctor's visit out of pocket instead of paying $1000s in taxes or health insurance premiums.

The free market does not bring innovation, don't fall for this lie.  Look at all the major technological innovations over the past 50 years, they came from government funded programs like NASA and the military.  GPs, Cell phones, internet, radio, etc.

For some reason what Bitcointalk users "think" is more important that observable facts....

The US literally has the worst and most inefficient healthcare system in the developed world and for some reason the answer found in this board is MOAR PROFIT will fix it, even as every other developed country proves them 100% wrong!

Agree with this. I work and study in the medical field although I'm not a doctor despite my username. While most medical professionals do the right thing there are a few I have seen that are a little too interested in getting the maximum payment even if their patients can't afford it. Sometimes they'll charge and prescribe things that their patient doesn't need.

It is a positive for countries that politicians and governments are responsible to voters for delivering a good health system. Like with many things in life problems start when competition and profits are the driving force. Health is too important and the stakes are too high to leave it to private companies.

Spending tax on health shouldn't be seen as a cost but an investment in the wellbeing and good of the country.

That's your opinion, but you are wrong. The reason is that in the USA the health care and Pharma companies are a powerful enough force to subvert legislation to their wishes. Thus your (or any) proposed "solution" simply becomes a tool for these forces to use to legislate themselves large chunks of our money.

You can't get around that.

There is no such thing as health care these days, Most "medicine" is allopathic, and is designed to suppress symptoms rather than cure illness. America wont regain its health until it stops poisoning it population with destructive drugs that weaken immune system, and destroy cartilage and other essentials. It is also designed to enrich the globalist pharma companies, and to help them with their global eugenics programmes.

I'm enjoying this discussion and I get where your head is at, but in this case more Government power and regulation is the answer.

I know this is bitcointalk and there is a tendency to lean towards being anti-centralization, and to have concerns about Government overreach. But there is virtually no evidence that the health system in the US would be better if there was less Government involvement. I can say that, because every other OECD country doing better than the US on healthcare has much more Government involvement.

If you're suggesting less Government involvement, then by default there would be more private company sway and freedom for doctors to treat and prescribe medicines as they wish, with essentially no Government body of oversight that can represent the consumer/citizen who needs healthcare. This is an issue. The power imbalance and information asymmetry between doctor and patient is massive, and there needs to be protections in place for a consumer to not get ripped off, receive poor treatment, or get given drugs they don't need.

As an example, those big pharma ads in the US about 'ask your doctor about how xyz drug can help you today' are criminal in other countries, because Government made the call that profits do not determine health treatment. Doctors are also not allowed to get kick backs from pharma companies for over prescribing their drugs. If you want health needs to come first, the answer is not less regulation and Government involvement, but more.

To put in perspective - none, and I mean none, of the OECD countries have a model anywhere close to the current US model which clearly suffers from private company profits prioritising consumer needs. The US should look to other OECD countries who are absolutely dominating the US system on providing a more affordable, efficient and a better health system. Many (not all) OECD countries do not even have a private insurance or private treatment component - it is all publicly and centrally funded, so Government can achieve economies of scale, set fair subsidy rates for drugs and work with the medical profession to subsidy treatments based on evidence (not on where doctors get kick backs from big pharma).

IMO this very US idea that 'Government should stay out of my life' just doesn't work when we are talking about healthcare. You want the Government accountable to meeting the health needs of the population, just like you want them accountable for national security, education and public infrastructure.

I don't need to make a philosophical argument to show it, I need to make it to point out these knee jerk reactions will not only make the problem worse, they will cause SO many more issues people have no concept of. People like to run around saying things like "healthcare is a right", and it simply can not be, because in order for some one to have that right you have to help yourself to the rights of others, be it time or resources. That is not how rights work.

IMO we need to strangle the insurance industry for starters, they along with the litigious nature of this nations laws are the primary culprits. These systems were abused until systems of protectionism were created, then those protective systems themselves became the systematic abuse. You will often find doctors who run a cash only practice will charge considerably less because of the removal of all of these compliance and documentation issues for example. Doctors spend more time doing paperwork than anything else, and that is retarded. Giving the government more power is not a solution because it is what got us here today.

Even IF you wanted to take the argument of right vs 'commodity', it is still irrelevant to judging how broken the US health system is and its expenditure. You don't need to make a philosophical or political argument to show it.

As an example, if you look here you'll see that the US Government spends the same as most other countries on health (public funding through taxes), but your private expenses (that is, your out-of-pocket costs when you see the doctor) are TRIPLE that of comparable countries.

So the taxes spent by US Government on health are the same as other countries, but you're still charged triple in private expenses. It's pathetic. In reality, even the whole 'oh I don't want to pay more taxes for healthcare' argument doesn't fly. Other countries pay pretty much the same in taxes for health purposes but don't get slugged with excessive private fees.

But reforms still don't happen as the US hyper capitalist mentality apparently even extends to people dying in hospital. I mean, really?

On top that, people jump to assumptions that it can be explained away by a philosophical argument of 'socialist healthcare' (its not socialist, but I'll put that to the side) not being right for the US. And that the US is making a choice of paying less tax = higher private costs vs paying more tax = less private costs. Well, clearly not actually - the amount of US tax revenue going to healthcare is the same as other OECD countries not less - the US health funding model just lets doctors, specialists, hospitals and big pharma get a nice pay day literally at your expense.

I was just trying to explain to someone how that the current issue is how we look at medicine in the US. I have started to put emphasis on medical industry. The sooner they get politicians who highlight that word, the sooner they can realize the problem. I fear politicians and media will play on people's fear and start coming out with terms like 'medical crisis' and 'medical bubble', just like was seen with the house/property industry. Industrialized causes result in industrialized outcomes. Right now what that means is as technology improves, only the wealthiest get access to the new tech, naturally. What people want is a more balanced system. One idea I heard recently is a lottery system where anyone who needs a specific treatment can 'win' a spot regardless of how full their pockets are. If only there was a way to have a provably fair lottery for it...

That idea only works when everyone agrees that every human life is valuable, however. Is it worth the time/resources to give a random lottery winner a better shot at life?

well usa is empire of capitalism, people that become doctor and stay doctor are usually socialists, thats why you neighbour cuba has a very good welfare system and usa has a horrible one that only serves the central bankers.

Healthcare is a commodity, not a right, and it is simple to prove. You have a right to travel, you have a right to defend yourself, you have a right to free speech. You do not have a right to the time and resources of others. In order to make healthcare a right you literally have to take time and resources from others by force, ie you take rights from some to give rights to others. The US healthcare system is broken, but if you can afford it you can get some of the best healthcare in the world right away, not 6 months after you get a referral which you waited another 6 months to get.

The best drug for big pharma isn't prevention or a cure. It is treatment. Especially an exclusive patented drug that provides ongoing 'treatment' for your condition and requires weekly/monthly top ups to improve your symptoms or increase your lifespan. Oh and it happens to be costly.

That is why all the research funding goes into treatments, rather than cures. What about vaccines and cures? Well Governments fund those or they don't get funded at all.

I could go on and on about this. Money in big pharma is also one of the reasons why relatively little funding is allocated to find new antibiotics. Anti-microbial resistance is a time bomb and I really hope we happen to find a new antibiotic within the next couple of decades even though most of the money goes elsewhere.

Big pharma pours money into the most profitable areas, not areas of greatest health need. A cure/treatment for male hairloss? Well that gets more funding than Malaria, which kills more than 400,000 people per year.

Outside of big pharma, the entire American healthcare system is broken. USA pays almost double per capita than other developed countries for healthcare, and doesn't get better outcomes (sometimes worse). In fact, based on life expectancy USA is actually worse than many countries - too much eating junk food and not going to the doctor early due to high upfront costs, so instead incurring greater costs down the track when serious conditions are left unchecked for too long.

And before people say 'oh well those OECD countries have higher taxes!' well the taxes they pay cover healthcare, which is half the price or better than the cost in the USA. If I had a choice between paying $1000 in taxes (which then goes to healthcare), or $2000 directly in healthcare for the same treatment, I know what I'd pick. Adding the middleman of the Government reduces healthcare expenditure by half.

Really, the American system is an example of how NOT to structure a healthcare funding model that puts the citizens needs first.

Pharma companies are charging the absurd prices for their medicines . Finding medicine is research field and money need to be paid for research but why the common medicine is also seeing price rise?

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/12/senate-panel-asks-cvs-and-other-middlemen-to-testify-about-drug-prices.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/09/cvs-cigna-humana-blame-big-pharma-for-high-drug-prices-in-senate-hearing.html

Govt. is aware of problem and they called bigshot pharma and they blamed drug makers. I guess it will go in circle until we find a solution.

"You think" when in reality the observable facts prove the exact opposite.  As mentioned we have many examples of good universal healthcare systems while literally ZERO examples of good for profit healthcare systems, and it isn't for lack of trying LMFAO!

I just personally think that we've never really had a market-related healthcare system, the government has been involved for far too long which has caused us to never even fathom what it would be like without the government involved.


Don't get me wrong Suchmoon, you could be right -- though I do think that the market is the best place to ensure prices, competition, innovation, etc.

But big Pharma/big hospital is eager to get into the profit through the rape of the US public in universal healthcare.

Doctors, however, are a luxury. You can't force them to do their job. They took years to study and go to school, especially the 'in demand' surgeons. They need to get that value back somehow.

On top of that you have an immigration system being taken advantage of by sick and injured people to cause even more stress on everything. The 'refugees' that get sent over are not more doctors, and that is what is needed.