Why isn't healthcare free in the U.S.?

[BrightThru2014]

Patients in the United States have access to more medicines than anywhere else in the world:

Source: https://catalyst.phrma.org/new-analy...-u.s.-patients

"Nearly 90 percent of these newly launched medicines were available in the United States, compared to just two-thirds in the United Kingdom, half in Canada and France, and one-third in Australia. For example:

Only 55 percent of the new medicines used to treat respiratory disorders were available in Canada, compared to 100 percent in the United States.
Of the 65 oncology NMEs identified, nearly all were available in the United States (62 medicines or 95 percent) compared to 75 percent in the United Kingdom and 51 percent in Japan.
For anti-infective and anti-viral medications, 90 percent of 30 NMEs identified were available in the United States compared to 80 percent in Germany, 60 percent in France and 57 percent in Canada."

[wincel]

Patients in the United States have access to more medicines than anywhere else in the world:

Source: https://catalyst.phrma.org/new-analy...-u.s.-patients

"Nearly 90 percent of these newly launched medicines were available in the United States, compared to just two-thirds in the United Kingdom, half in Canada and France, and one-third in Australia. For example:

Only 55 percent of the new medicines used to treat respiratory disorders were available in Canada, compared to 100 percent in the United States.
Of the 65 oncology NMEs identified, nearly all were available in the United States (62 medicines or 95 percent) compared to 75 percent in the United Kingdom and 51 percent in Japan.
For anti-infective and anti-viral medications, 90 percent of 30 NMEs identified were available in the United States compared to 80 percent in Germany, 60 percent in France and 57 percent in Canada."

True. The main issue is only some of our people get to be patients, and it depends on how much money they have to spend. The options are "available", but in practice, only a few will have access due to cost. We have the best healthcare in the world if you can afford it.

[BrightThru2014]

Oh, I get it now. You're one of those people.

If healthcare was just paid for with taxes, you wouldn't even notice or care. You wouldn't need to pay for health insurance premiums anymore, or worry about copays, prescriptions, going broke because you broke an arm.....Etc.

You would probably break even with the tax increase for universal healthcare.

This is categorically false, 71 percent of households would pay more in healthcare costs under Medicare for All.

Source: https://www.sph.emory.edu/department...al-Impacts.pdf

"The analysis shows that 71 percent of households with private insurance today would pay more in new taxes than they would save through the elimination of premiums and cost sharing."

[BrightThru2014]

True. The main issue is only some of our people get to be patients, and it depends on how much money they have to spend. The options are "available", but in practice, only a few will have access due to cost. We have the best healthcare in the world if you can afford it.

92% of Americans currently have healthcare.

Source: https://www.census.gov/library/publi...o/p60-264.html

61% of people who report being uninsured at a given point are uninsured for 6 months or less.

Source: https://www.commonwealthfund.org/pub...ears-after-aca

Around 60% of the uninsured are part of the "heathy" age-range of 19-45:

Source: https://www.census.gov/library/stori...uninsured.html

So when it comes to people lacking insurance in America, it is a tiny majority of the country, who are often uninsured for only a short period, and who are mostly healthy-aged people who are least likely to require medical care.

In return for this situation, Americans get to enjoy the best healthcare in the world. Seems like a pretty good tradeoff to me.

[isingmodel]

Patients in the United States have access to more medicines than anywhere else in the world:

Source: https://catalyst.phrma.org/new-analy...-u.s.-patients

"Nearly 90 percent of these newly launched medicines were available in the United States, compared to just two-thirds in the United Kingdom, half in Canada and France, and one-third in Australia. For example:

Only 55 percent of the new medicines used to treat respiratory disorders were available in Canada, compared to 100 percent in the United States.
Of the 65 oncology NMEs identified, nearly all were available in the United States (62 medicines or 95 percent) compared to 75 percent in the United Kingdom and 51 percent in Japan.
For anti-infective and anti-viral medications, 90 percent of 30 NMEs identified were available in the United States compared to 80 percent in Germany, 60 percent in France and 57 percent in Canada."

It's worth pointing out that many of these are not real advancements over previous drugs. The US has a ridiculous system where drugs are advertised directly to patients and sold almost like everyday consumer goods. The pharma industry therefore pumps out a ****load of new drugs with big snazzy marketing campaigns but a lot of them are just small modifications of well established drug classes, rather anything really revolutionary.

If you really think Japan is lacking in necessary medication then....

[BrightThru2014]

It's worth pointing out that many of these are not real advancements over previous drugs. The US has a ridiculous system where drugs are advertised directly to patients and sold almost like everyday consumer goods. The pharma industry therefore pumps out a ****load of new drugs with big snazzy marketing campaigns but a lot of them are just small modifications of well established drug classes, rather anything really revolutionary.

If you really think Japan is lacking in necessary medication then....

So you're telling me you would rather live in a country with 50% less access to newly developed drugs? The vast majority of these drugs are NOT advertised to Americans as consumer goods, this is total sensationalism.

And unless you're going to provide any support for your statement (which again, is absolutely in line with the fact that America has the best healthcare outcomes in the world for serious illnesses) I think it's fair to say we can dismiss it as cope.

[isingmodel]

So you're telling me you would rather live in a country with 50% less access to newly developed drugs? The vast majority of these drugs are NOT advertised to Americans as consumer goods, this is total sensationalism.

And unless you're going to provide any support for your statement (which again, is absolutely in line with the fact that America has the best healthcare outcomes in the world for serious illnesses) I think it's fair to say we can dismiss it as cope.

https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10....1.268271/full/

[BrightThru2014]

https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10....1.268271/full/

Still waiting for a source that shows that less access to newer drugs on a health system-wide scale results in better outcomes.

[snailsrus]

Health coverage secondary to Medicare has always cost an arm and a leg. Because old people get sick a lot.

Paying $500 - $700 per month is what that market has always been.

Yes but I had better benefits and lower deductibles and a wider network and post Obama my parents went up 300-500 dollars more per month

[rampagefc77]

This is categorically false, 71 percent of households would pay more in healthcare costs under Medicare for All.

Source: https://www.sph.emory.edu/department...al-Impacts.pdf

"The analysis shows that 71 percent of households with private insurance today would pay more in new taxes than they would save through the elimination of premiums and cost sharing."

I'm sure it's been posted, but our currently yearly expenditures are around 3 trillion. Medicare for all (which is **** insurance BTW) would triple that to around 9 million.

Medicare pays providers about 1/3 the rate of commercial insurance. If all reimbursement was cut, private practices wouldn't be able to exist and even most large practices would be threatened.

[CalmWind]

Nothing is "free", OP.


What you call free, means higher taxation of our incomes.

[isingmodel]

Still waiting for a source that shows that less access to newer drugs on a health system-wide scale results in better outcomes.

No one said that, I just said there isn't much benefit (or sometimes even detriment) to many new drugs, so measuring success just based on the amount of new drugs pumped out is very flawed.

Eg. Your data says that Japan only has access to around 50% of the new medications. Yet Japan has shown the world's best survival rates for strokes, and has shown better survival rates than the US for some major cancers like colorectal and cervical.

So it's nowhere near as simple as you make it out to be.

[BrightThru2014]

No one said that, I just said there isn't much benefit (or sometimes even detriment) to many new drugs, so measuring success just based on the amount of new drugs pumped out is very flawed.

Eg. Your data says that Japan only has access to around 50% of the new medications. Yet Japan has shown the world's best survival rates for strokes, and has shown better survival rates than the US for some major cancers like colorectal and cervical.

So it's nowhere near as simple as you make it out to be.

Sure it's not an absolute indicator of superiority, but it's a significant factor, and it's self-evident that you would prefer to exist in an healthcare system with the maximum amount of treatments available.

You can't be the best at everything (If I'm not mistaken a lot of the better figures for certain cancers in East Asia stem from the relative prevalence in their population groups leading to cultural sensitivity to symptoms and early screening efforts), and especially given the relative lack of concentrated population centers in the United States, it's remarkable that we are still, consistently, superior on most health indicators.

[dazitmayn]

Canada's health care system is actually a fuking disaster it makes me mad because I have family up there.

They are different from UK/Australia in the sense that Canada literally does everything in its power to de-incentivize private health care. Doctors can't practice both private and public. They need to pick one. Canadian opposition of privatization has a long history and for whatever reason they take pride in this. Health care is the single biggest issue in Canadian politics ask anybody who lives there. Wait times there are absolutely ridiculous.

while there are people that come to Canada for free health care, there are people from Canada that also go down to America because they would rather pay for treatment if they can get it quickly. It goes both ways.

[Ilikebeef]

I have great health insurance through my job.

$75 per paycheck
$2900 OOP max


That means the max I pay out per year is $4850. (Bear in mind I have medical problems that can potentially cost at least 50-100K per year without ins, just my medication would be 20k per year without ins)

And of that $4850 its all paid for by pre-tax money due to HSA and payroll deduction.

So the $4850 is totally removed from tax liability for me making my income slightly lower for tax purposes.

My doctors and hospitals I use are top notch in a state known for good hospitals.
Im very happy with my healthcare and I slightly worry about what a government program might be like.

[guitarwar241]

Okay. I'll take extra stress and a higher chance of survival statistically, thanks.

..Are you really arguing that you would rather be in a country where you are more likely to die?

What happens when you run out of money and they cut off your treatment? Your higher chance of survival goes right out the window.

[Nelly87]

Reading up on this topic and am using Canada and UK as examples. I know it isn't technically free, as the costs does come from somewhere via taxes. I don't know the living costs there, but it can't be that bad compared to U.S. living costs.

Some people pay as much as $600/month for healthcare and never get sick.

it's "free" for the poor. you should be happy! we make the well-off pay for the poor's healthcare and then also make them pay for their own private insurance!!!

looks like you spent 0 effort into researching this

[ErnieMccracken]

I have great health insurance through my job.

$75 per paycheck
$2900 OOP max


That means the max I pay out per year is $4850. (Bear in mind I have medical problems that can potentially cost at least 50-100K per year without ins, just my medication would be 20k per year without ins)

And of that $4850 its all paid for by pre-tax money due to HSA and payroll deduction.

So the $4850 is totally removed from tax liability for me making my income slightly lower for tax purposes.

My doctors and hospitals I use are top notch in a state known for good hospitals.
Im very happy with my healthcare and I slightly worry about what a government program might be like.

Oh you sweet summer child. You think insurance is going to cut a blank check if you need something expensive? They have entire departments dedicated to denying you coverage. No exaggeration.

I spent $20k on surgery to repair a hamstring tendon because insurance said they'd only cover cheap pain pills. I posted about my sister's treatment. This happens to thousands of people every day. Still we have people defending it.

What is the big mental block?

[lolimgood]

Nothing is "free", OP.


What you call free, means higher taxation of our incomes.

How many times are people gonna say this? Phucking retard.

It's free at the point of use. Anyone over the age of 6 knows it's paid with taxes, you phucking troglodyte.

[StoliFun]

Oh you sweet summer child. You think insurance is going to cut a blank check if you need something expensive? They have entire departments dedicated to denying you coverage. No exaggeration.

I spent $20k on surgery to repair a hamstring tendon because insurance said they'd only cover cheap pain pills. I posted about my sister's treatment. This happens to thousands of people every day. Still we have people defending it.

What is the big mental block?

When they and theirs are in a good situation, it is hard to convince them that things need to change. Heck, even when healthcare calamities happen to someone near them, some miscers are so socially atavistic that they still don't give a damn: https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showt...post1591098501

How many times are people gonna say this? Phucking retard.

It's free at the point of use. Anyone over the age of 6 knows it's paid with taxes, you phucking troglodyte.

It is unwise to expect to get blood from a turnip.

[messomi]

How many times are people gonna say this? Phucking retard.

It's free at the point of use. Anyone over the age of 6 knows it's paid with taxes, you phucking troglodyte.

lmao

[messomi]

Oh you sweet summer child. You think insurance is going to cut a blank check if you need something expensive? They have entire departments dedicated to denying you coverage. No exaggeration.

I spent $20k on surgery to repair a hamstring tendon because insurance said they'd only cover cheap pain pills. I posted about my sister's treatment. This happens to thousands of people every day. Still we have people defending it.

What is the big mental block?

are you the guy with the sister that had cancer she was fully insured and they asked for 100k up front?

[ErnieMccracken]

are you the guy with the sister that had cancer she was fully insured and they asked for 100k up front?

Yes. We had 48 hours to come up with the $100k cash down payment. And another $500k is due over the next few months or they stop treatment.

She is fully insured but insurance denied the treatment both her oncologists prescribed. They said the only coverage they are legally obligated to pay for is a generic chemo that isn't even for the specific type of cancer she has. Completely inappropriate for her DX. Her doctors filed a petition to grant an exception, and surprise, insurance said no thanks. So here we are.

It can happen to you, me, or anyone else at any time. As I've learned, cancer wards are FULL of families who have gone from comfortable middle class to destitute. It was a mistake to click on this thread.

[TonyTriangles]

if health care is free, then you get what you pay for.... absolutely nothing

[BrightThru2014]

What happens when you run out of money and they cut off your treatment? Your higher chance of survival goes right out the window.

1. It's illegal to refuse emergency treatment to a patient (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerge...tive_Labor_Act)
2. That's the whole point of insurance
3. That's the whole point of Medicaid
4. That's the whole point of taking loans and filing for bankruptcy if you can't pay them
5. That's the whole point of charities or donations which may otherwise cover your costs
6. All of the above are preferable to being helpless and dying without having a shot at living

[BrightThru2014]

Yes. We had 48 hours to come up with the $100k cash down payment. And another $500k is due over the next few months or they stop treatment.

She is fully insured but insurance denied the treatment both her oncologists prescribed. They said the only coverage they are legally obligated to pay for is a generic chemo that isn't even for the specific type of cancer she has. Completely inappropriate for her DX. Her doctors filed a petition to grant an exception, and surprise, insurance said no thanks. So here we are.

It can happen to you, me, or anyone else at any time. As I've learned, cancer wards are FULL of families who have gone from comfortable middle class to destitute. It was a mistake to click on this thread.

Look, if this story is legit, I'm sorry and that sucks. I wish you and your sister the best, but public policy should not be decided on the basis of extreme anecdotes:

- Do you really think that she would have received that care in another country where government bureaucracies are the ones responsible for controlling costs?
- At least in America she has the OPTION of receiving life saving care in the first place.

FYI to the other posters in this thread what ErnieMccracken is describing is 100% illegal and there is undoubtedly more to this story. Insurance companies are legally obligated to cover procedures that fall within the "standard of care" for treating a given illness. He is either lying or extremely ignorant of his rights and he needs to immediately sue.

[ErnieMccracken]

Look, if this story is legit, I'm sorry and that sucks. I wish you and your sister the best, but public policy should not be decided on the basis of extreme anecdotes:

- Do you really think that she would have received that care in another country where government bureaucracies are the ones responsible for controlling costs?
- At least in America she has the OPTION of receiving life saving care in the first place.

FYI to the other posters in this thread what ErnieMccracken is describing is 100% illegal and there is undoubtedly more to this story. Insurance companies are legally obligated to cover procedures that fall within the "standard of care" for treating a given illness. He is either lying or extremely ignorant of his rights and he needs to immediately sue.

Bro you are so full of chit and have no zero clue what you're talking about. Less than zero because you think you know. I'm not even going to argue with you because I'm sure it's pointless. You'll do whatever mental gymnastics it takes to avoid the truth.

Someday you're going to get denied for something critical and they will laugh when you tell them, " b b b but you can't do that!"

[MiscDaddy]

Look, if this story is legit, I'm sorry and that sucks. I wish you and your sister the best, but public policy should not be decided on the basis of extreme anecdotes:

- Do you really think that she would have received that care in another country where government bureaucracies are the ones responsible for controlling costs?
- At least in America she has the OPTION of receiving life saving care in the first place.

FYI to the other posters in this thread what ErnieMccracken is describing is 100% illegal and there is undoubtedly more to this story. Insurance companies are legally obligated to cover procedures that fall within the "standard of care" for treating a given illness. He is either lying or extremely ignorant of his rights and he needs to immediately sue.

Logged in to tell you I know three people in my extended network that received brain surgery in the last year. All 3 were successful, no delays that cost them their life. No stress over insurance. Them and their families just keep on living. His sister would have been just fine in Canada.

[guitarwar241]

1. It's illegal to refuse emergency treatment to a patient (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerge...tive_Labor_Act)
2. That's the whole point of insurance
3. That's the whole point of Medicaid
4. That's the whole point of taking loans and filing for bankruptcy if you can't pay them
5. That's the whole point of charities or donations which may otherwise cover your costs
6. All of the above are preferable to being helpless and dying without having a shot at living

Dude, seriously. You're so out of touch with what happens in this country with healthcare that it's sickening. Any sort of non-emergency medical treatment (cancer treatments for instance) obviously wouldn't fall under emergency care so your 1st point is null right from the start. I also can't believe that you didn't know that insurance companies deny people necessary treatments left and right here. Then they make you jump through hoops to try and get them to potentially cover it so you don't go broke.

I actually lol'd at your taking a loan/filing for bankruptcy advice if you need some medical treatment. How does that not sound insane to you? You act like the United States is the only country that can treat cancer and every other country has no chance. Get phucking real, man.

[ErnieMccracken]

This guy worked harder and contributed more to humanity than everyone here combined... and still got rung up for every penny by the healthcare system.