Yet people still say this system is better than universal healthcare, go figure
And you know what? Fine, whatever, in some twisted version of the world I can accept this as an argument. But I wish people would at least realize that by only having private healthcare they are fucking themselves over as shown here. The prices, the copays, the restricted access, the in and out of network treatments......all of that is completely made up to feed the system.
It should be added that a healthcare system that relies on insurance companies isn't necessarily a problem, as evidenced by the number of countries (the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, etc.) with highly regarded healthcare systems that rely on private healthcare. Germany has a hybrid public/private system, while the Netherland system relies on mandatory personal health insurance. But these systems work because they are highly regulated and are designed to benefit the individual, with limits on how much providers are allowed to charge, for example.
The US spends more as a percentage of GDP on healthcare and has the lowest life expectancy of all developed countries[1]. They are already spending their hard earned money on other peoples treatments, they are just getting less bang for their buck.
1. https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2...
Infant mortality is counted differently. The US system will try and save a kid that other system don’t - that’s a death where other systems don’t count it as a life.
But physical and mental healthcare plays a major part in the other 95% of deaths.
But it is anyway in fact, since that's how insurance works even privately.
There is a model somewhere in between, like the swiss system. Here we pay a deductible amount of our own healthcare per year, which can be one of several set amounts. After that insurance pays 90% up to some set ceiling, then everything.
Costs including monthly premiums are regulated for essential treatment, and people who really can't pay can ask the government for assistance. The differentiator for health insurance is in add on packages. You want a private hotel room if you ever need to stay? Extra. You want something not covered by the basic insurance (most things you might reasonably need are covered)? Extra.
This has the advantage of making the cost of unnecessary healthcare visible to people, which discourages unnecessary use a bit, while making sure that if something really does go wrong you will be treated and you don't need to worry about going bankrupt. It isn't tied to employers either.
It isn't a perfect system but my point is that there is in fact a reasonable middle ground compromise if 'everything is free' isn't acceptable. It is also quite possible to make money even with a system that charges for basic healthcare.
I agree that the US system is probably unchangeable - too many entrenched interests. It seems a shame though. We need some level of safety net as a society.
In the current US system, that money goes to private companies, which is good.
Don't bother questioning this because it's axiomatic. It has ceased to be merely political theory; it's now core to many people's identity. Any threat to that status quo is a personal, existential threat.
I think another argument is that it'll be less effective (ex: longer wait times, etc) and that people will abuse it, ex: in Canada, I used to see people show up to ER because they were sneezing and I've seen people wait forever to get a doctor, etc, you're much less likely to do that if it costs you something.
No saying it’s the right approach or not, but it’s an interesting one.
An example: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/a-tale-of-2-...
"Then I found out that this other country — which I thought had a healthcare system that was so superior to the U.S. — doesn't test for the tumour marker that saved my life, and doesn't cover this drug that is responsible for pushing my cancer into remission after traditional chemotherapy failed to do that."
In a public health system waste is considered bad, and we would work to lower it.
In the private system waste is called shareholder value, and we work to increase it.
edit: I phrased this poorly, but certainly stand by my point. If anyone would care to discuss this or educate me, I am always open to change my mind.
OK, so if I understand your point, US healthcare is not free-market enough and even more deregulation is the cure. In that scenario even more hungry profit centers are allowed to flourish between the patient and their doctor. But, that is even more "waste" from a patient money -> healthcare provided point of view.
What has become apparent to me is that some aspects of civilization are not compatible with privatization. Oof. This was a very bitter pill for me to swallow as my background is having escaped Soviet controlled Europe when I was a child. It has taken a lot of time for me to realize that the ideal solutions for our species may not be at the opposite extreme of ideology. The big realization may have been that solutions in reality are often closer to a tensor than any one-dimensional concept or pure ideology.
* Note: by "ideal solutions for our species," I mean optimizing for the survival of the species, and growth of our technological civilization.