The bizarre thing is that the problems are fixable. The federal government already spends more per capita on healthcare than other developed countries, just that our healthcare is so much more expensive and for no good reason.
Our healthcare system, to the extent that it was intentionally designed at all, implicitly prioritizes consumer choice and immediate access over cost efficiency. While there are certainly gaps in access and affordability, the typical middle-class voter can still get elective care quickly from a variety of local providers. Most other developed countries have longer queues or certain services are less available. We also subsidize drug development costs for the rest of the world. Whether those are good reasons for paying more is a matter of opinion.
Of course there's also a certain amount of waste, fraud, and abuse that inflate our costs.
> The US certainly does not subsidize drugs for the rest of the world.
It literally does. The costs of producing drugs are mostly borne by the US market, allowing drug manufacturers to charge less elsewhere while still investing the billions of dollars necessary to develop the drugs.
Economists, and pharma lobbyists, argue against US drug price regulation because new drugs produce large positive externalities.
I think it's a mix of pharma lobbying and also altruism. Pharma lobbies Congress to do the altruistic thing, and many Congresspeople agree, because they believe in markets and understand incentives.
No one claimed that it's for the benefit of the rest of the world. But the reality is that if US drug prices were fixed by the government at lower levels then there would be less new drug development. The US develops around 75% of world's new drugs. Would you prefer to have fewer new drugs going forward?
Nope. Nobody changed the argument. No one said "USA subsidizes drug development out of a societal sense of charitable obligation to the rest of the world." It just so happens that - due to the unfortunate design of our system - the rest of the world is receiving a subsidy.
In fact, there are European-HQ'd pharma companies that also make the lion's share of their profits in the US - so that's certainly not benefiting the US.
There is a good reason: profits and management pay. And greed is good, right?
> the problems are fixable
Fixable in theory. The US would first have to fix the underlying issue, which i.m.o. is government, media and even judicial capture by financial interests. Billionaires are now openly buying "shares" in those. I don't see any sign of it changing anytime soon. It only seems to get worse.
It's not just profits and management. Administrators, nurses, and yes, definitely doctors, get paid far higher in the U.S. than in other countries. Who wants to be the one to say we need to cut staff, and cut wages for nurses and doctors, in order to bring down costs? Just cutting fat from insurance companies, or having the government step in as insurer with no other changes, wouldn't move the needle much.
I'm pretty sure healthcare costs in the US are also higher as a percentage of GDP compared to EU, so higher wages would not explain the difference. Also productivity should be higher?
I think pharmaceutical, hospital, insurance and legal companies take all the money.
Yes there’s tons of overhead and extra costs, but it isn’t mostly at the insurance company level. It’s spread all around the system, that was my point. There’s no one “quick fix” that leaves everyone with the same job and fat salary as they had before.
