Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

ISBN39393242 t1_jcb2wgo wrote

why are so many americans so protective of a health care system that is so transparently, objectively inefficient and cruel?

what would it take for bipartisan buy-in to a more civilized system?

7

Wicked-Skengman t1_jcb7pry wrote

There are advantages of insurance based healthcare systems - the primary one being innovation.

It's no coincidence that the US has the largest dug companies at the cutting edge of research.

I'm not saying the US system is good by any stretch, but it has its advantages

Edit: we should also be careful with the data here - is the reason the US has a lower life expectancy a direct result of its healthcare system? I imagine theres a load of other factors such as lifestyle and diet that are more important

3

Temporary-Alarm-744 t1_jcdbmor wrote

So what you're saying is the US is subsidizing the worlds research into pharmaceuticals by killing and bankrupting its own people. Nice. When you put it that way let's keep this system. It's only fair

2

xylopyrography t1_jccv1e1 wrote

The last point is important.

Suicide, firearm deaths, deaths from obesity, deaths from smoking are all higher in America.

Opioid deaths are way, way higher, which pulls life expectancy way down because the age of death is tragically so young.

Your first point I'm not sold on. The US pharma system is beyond inefficient. They may output more but there certainly exists a system which could do 10x as much with the same funding.

0

OwenLoveJoy t1_jcckcot wrote

Because those for whom the system works well (ie people with good jobs that provide excellent insurance) are afraid of a decline in their care and the groups which have an interest in the current system (insurance companies, doctors, pharmaceutical companies) influence congress to not change the system and promote fear about a replacement.

3

Artistic-Breadfruit9 t1_jcbcasc wrote

This type of data surfaces every so often, and my reaction is always the same: yes, the US system is woefully inefficient BUT the population is also incredibly unhealthy. Correcting for some of these factors (obesity being a pretty good surrogate) would undoubtedly change the message.

Very nicely presented, though.

2

rabbiskittles t1_jcc702r wrote

You could flip the causation around, though. If every American had ready access to see a general practitioner 1-2 times a year for a checkup at zero out of pocket cost, do you think any of those latent health issues (including obesity) would change? I’d hypothesize yes, but I could be wrong.

3

dml997 t1_jccmkqj wrote

As seen many times before, but a much worse plot that is barely legible.

1