This sounds a bit extreme until you get to the point in the article where it says that it’s currently 18% of the economy. So it’ll just barely outgrow the economy over the next decade, barring no changes
there's too much money changing hands for things to ever change, never-mind a large group of people being brainwashed to think that private insurance is the better option.
> people being brainwashed to think that private insurance is the better option.
It is funny how people will do nothing but talk about how insanely horrible the insurance companies and entire system is. Almost everybody has a personal anecdote about terrible interactions dealing with insurance.
Yet when talking about removing that system, they turn on a dime to talk about how the world would end with MFA.
This is the biggest problem, IMO. And it’s not just rich people. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of middle-class people in this country who derive their incomes from the healthcare system being inefficient.
Yes, and they largely fund the campaigns of politicians in both parties about equally.
The "partisan controversy" around healthcare isn't actually a partisan at all. Neither party dares impact these profits because it would instantly result in the defunding of their party.
We should have a national healthcare system, because it will improve outcomes, but also we shouldn't expect massive savings. Current studies estimate an average savings of 3.9%. It's a reform that will expand access more than reduce costs.
Sure, but it's also less than the amount of increase that you will see per the article. So, even if implemented tomorrow, costs would continue to rise.
Also, for the average family, I think the cost savings work out to something like $11 a paycheck, per worker.
Again, this is a good policy, but if you put the idea in people's heads that they will save a large sum of money, they are going to be very disappointed by the reality of it.
The issue isn't just profits of the insurance companies, it's also that rationing care the way health insurance companies do is a less efficient use of resources.
Less preventative care, wasted doctors time on prior authorizations, inefficiencies in billing, etc.
I swear, going to a dentist should be free. Getting mental health treatment should be free. Gym memberships should be fucking free. We should have a stronger FDA that bans sugary shit at the grocery store. Add a sin tax on sugary shit. Ban corn syrup from being in fucking everything.
Bro this is an economics sub. You have to pretend that if dentists are free people will just start going for fun because the cost is below its value! /s
People wouldn't go for fun, but just like medical care if you don't put at least some minimal limitations on people using a system then there WILL be frequent fliers. Hypochondriacs don't only do "harm" to themselves they harm everybody by sucking up resources that other people need.
They are not mutually exclusive, and considering that insurance companies may make it harder to improve obesity rates, you might need one to satisfy the other.
> You will save more money by halving obesity alone than all the profits of all health insurance companies
Good luck with that. American culture is based on obesity. I recently saw this documentary on McAllen, TX. Asking the people to eat less, eat healthier food, and exercise more is like asking a fish to fly and a bird to swim. Our very cities are based around car ownership and limiting walking.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgu-XOhE5k8
Triple H and WWE representing health just looks bad. A pretend sport about hitting each other, taking bumps, and taking steroids is supposed to represent good health?
As much as RFK wants the US to be healthy again. I doubt much will change besides a few FDA regulations. Our cities aren't going to suddenly change their infrastructure to have better walkability. The people aren't going to suddenly make healthier lifestyle choices and stop taking drugs. Many American problems are because of the people and their culture- and I do have to blame poor health on the people and their culture. There really is no "poof! it's now fixed!" that can be done by government intervention.
That has no bearing on the issue because it’s the case either way. It’s a control. Currently, you and I pay for unhealthy people through our insurance, and the old through our Medicare taxes. There is no option—not even paying out-of-pocket—that can insulate you from subsidizing someone whose health is less stable than yours.
Good place to note that rent is probably another two-fifths of the economy even though nothing is materially produced by scalping a home (huh, kinda like health insurance!)
This is well.below the S&P 500 profit margin of about 12%.
They clearly have an important social function beyond rent seeking, in terms of both risk sharing and cost control in the health sector. If the US had socialised healthcare they wouldn't need to do that, but since it doesn't someone clearly has to.
Their profits as a percentage are legally capped. They have learned the way to increase that profit overall is not by percentage, but by increasing the amount pulled in and increasing the amount spent out. The more expensive they make the entire healthcare process the more opportunities to profit by some portion in the middle of the healthcare stream and the more they are allowed to legally profit overall.
If there is competition then if one insurer raises prices then the others can keep their prices the same and gain market share and so become more profitable.
Without collusion, increased prices for consumers is not a stable equilibrium. See Bertrand Competition.
You didn’t answer my question. Or ask me a question. Just random statements suggesting nothing in good faith as your not making an argument but randomly speaking.
I am saying the mechanism you propose would require essentially zero competition in the sector for the reason I outlined.
Given there is in fact moderate competition in the sector the mechanism you described is implausible. I linked to the economic theory which supports this argument.
I don't know why you are insisting that I'm arguing in bad faith, frankly there's no need for name calling. I genuinely believe that evidence is clear that health insurers are not the most significant reason for higher US health care costs than other countries. Which is obvious given that many countries have some sort of private insurance component.
There are some local markets where competition could be better. But this is clearly not responsible for a substantial portion of health costs. The mechanism they outline is not plausible with even the smallest bit of competition.
Most universal health care systems here in Europe have health insurance companies (some private, some semipublic), yet most are far more efficient than the US health care system. Seems the issue is more subtle than just "insurance company bad."
Volume of business (numbers of members and claims) handled by insurance companies in those European countries you mentioned is much lower because bulk of the healthcare delivery happens within the universal healthcare system. It is much easier to be efficient at a much smaller scale.
> Volume of business (numbers of members and claims) handled by insurance companies in those European countries you mentioned is much lower because bulk of the healthcare delivery happens within the universal healthcare system.
Some of these universal healthcare systems are more privatized than the American one (e.g., the Swiss system, in which there is no Medicaid or Medicare equivalent - those people are all on private insurance).
> It is much easier to be efficient at a much smaller scale.
No, the opposite is the case, there are (small) efficiencies of scale. If you would have a health care system in, say, a small town, then efficiency is hampered because certain niche treatments/ailments occur so infrequently that it becomes more difficult to set up the delivery chain, train the right specialists, etc.
For a country of millions it basically does not matter.
We pay twice as much than the average of other high income developed nations. We also don't cover 100% of the population and we have people declaring bankruptcy and getting claims denied. We are also the fattest developed nation in the world. Great healthcare system.
But it is clear that Americans spend more on healthcare than other rich countries because they are buying more and better healthcare in aggregate and they spend around about what you expect given that America is just much richer than other countries. The cancer survival rates were not cherry picked, they were published in the Lancet! They were just an example of how the US system has significantly better outcomes when you isolate the actual impact of healthcare.
Claims get denied in all countries, countries with more government control of healthcare have much more rationing because that's the only way they can possibly work without price signals.
I have no idea why you think obesity is downstream of healthcare. There have not been effective interventions until recently, apart from bariatric surgery which isn't really appropriate en masse.
There are real trade offs here and you may not like the outcome that the American political process has chosen but it is clearly better along several dimensions than alternatives.
No it isn't there's a reason why every developed nation in the world has some sort of universal healthcare system and no other system in the world even resembles our except for Medicare, but they have Medicare for all. Again we pay twice as much and get worst outcomes except for certain cancers. Whoopty do we also die younger and are unhealthier.
> In 2023, the average life expectancy in the U.S. was 78.4 years, compared with 82.5 years among peer nations such as Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and Switzerland. This difference exists despite the United States spending far more per capita on healthcare.
> The study found that premature deaths defined as deaths before age 70, occur at nearly twice the rate in the U.S. (408 per 100,000) as in comparable countries (228 per 100,000).
No country has anything anywhere even near as generous as what Medicare for all proponents want. They simply wouldn't be able to afford it. Something along those lines would be affordable in the US because the US is much richer but there would be significant trade offs - just like there is with any system.
Mortality rates are not a good way of determining the marginal impact of the healthcare system because of the impact of worse diet, accidents, and violent crimes.
Elon tried his darnest, probably killed millions, and found little more than pocket change to save...the waste, fraud and abuse is what Trump and Co. Are doing now...
If you go to work expecting more in pay than the cost of gas, you're "profitting" from having unique skills that an employer will pay for. Evil Capitalist!
this is what I came here to say. Without reading the article, I already knew healthcare spending is at 18%, so... basically a 10% increase in 10 years is not that bad.
Makes you realize US GDP is largely a sham. A $5,000 ER trip cost $50 in Thailand. Is the US ER trip 100 times more productive to the economy? US GDP needs to include a healthcare deflator in the calculation.
And none of it will go to the actual people who provide healthcare, will it? Perhaps some will go to the doctors, but I assume most will go to administrators and insurance companies, or entities who provide exactly zero care to anyone who is sick.
We are already struggling and borrowing about half that money to maintain it. This is not inflation where the collective amount is increasing as expected, it is a percentage of the economy and if anything we need it to decrease.
Right now as it is, every two weeks you work, about two days goes directly towards medical services. There are a lot of other costs we also have to pay for.
Someone should convince Trump to make "trump care" by rebranding Medicare. It might just work. I dont give a fuck what it is named. That can be changed later.
Trump is the only president where such a stupid strategy might actually work, but no one who wants to do that actually has access to him. That is why it was crazy to expect Trump to "fix trade" or "fix Obamacare" in his first term, where an average Trump cabinet member was a GW Bush guy at best, or someone who believed that GW Bush was a leftist at worst.
Covers everyone, automatically: Ends the “insured vs. uninsured” split, so nobody falls through the cracks because they changed jobs, got sick, moved, or missed paperwork.
Kills medical bankruptcy: Medical bills stop being a leading reason people go broke, because basic care isn’t tied to your credit limit.
Cheaper, simpler admin: One set of rules and billing dramatically reduces the “paperwork tax” (insurers, prior auth armies, coding games, network gymnastics).
Bigger bargaining power = lower prices: A single large payer can negotiate down hospital charges and drug prices the way other rich countries do.
Freedom from job-lock: People can leave bad jobs, start businesses, go freelance, or retire earlier without losing health coverage.
No surprise out-of-network landmines: Networks stop being a booby-trap; you don’t get punished because the anesthesiologist “wasn’t in network.”
Earlier care, fewer expensive crises: When people can see a doctor sooner, you catch problems before they become ER disasters and ICU-level bills.
More consistent mental health + addiction treatment: Makes ongoing care easier to access, which reduces downstream costs in homelessness, incarceration, and ER use.
Healthier workforce, higher productivity: Fewer untreated conditions means fewer missed workdays, less disability, and better long-run economic output.
More predictable costs for families: Replaces premium roulette with a clearer, more stable way of paying (instead of “this year the premium doubled again”).
Narrower racial and income health gaps: Universal access reduces disparities driven by coverage differences and delayed treatment.
Less time fighting insurance, more time practicing medicine: Clinicians spend less time on denials and prior authorizations and more time on actual care.
I agree with most all of this with the exception of "medical bankruptcy." The term is a huge misnomer and doesn't describe what people think it is describing.
"Bankruptcy due to medical condition" is one of the leading causes of bankruptcy but the vast majority isn't because of medical bills. The largest driver is actually due to the fact that the category also includes loss of income due to inability to work due to medical condition, which then leads to inability to pay bills and ultimately bankruptcy. It's not impossible for medical bills to cause bankruptcy, but it would be extremely rare.
In the national study of 2007 U.S. bankruptcy filers (Himmelstein et al., American Journal of Medicine, 2009), 54.9% said medical/drug costs contributed and 37.8% cited illness-related income loss. 95% of filers who reported illness-related income loss also had high medical bills.
United States: adult patients + caregivers spent ~USD $180 to $2,600 per month out of pocket (across studies/cancers).
Canada: ~USD $15 to $400 per month out of pocket (across studies/cancers).
Note that early access to treatment prevents major diseasess.
And universal healthcare helps people go in early rather than delay treatment….. and everyone is covered
That's because all the money is going into long term care facilities. The Boomers are quickly aging into various care facilities where the cost is huge, you're starting at $5,000 a month just for basic room and board. If you need additional care or memory care those numbers really take off.
I’m sure ‘healthcare sectors’ jobs are more than medical practitioners. Administrative staff, lawyers, marketing/sales, accountants, managers, VPs, etc. in the insurance companies are also included in the statistics.
Its likely more driven by growth in PCAs and nurses aids. America is getting older and home health aides are in crazy demand because of it. Agencies around me will literally hire anyone because there is so much demand.
And here we see clearly why business interests and politicians are so opposed to a universal healthcare system. Health insurance makes big money, and the healthcare system in general is a giant money pit designed to suck all the wealth out of the lower classes and funnel it upward. If the government were to step in, regulate pricing, and guarantee care the gravy train comes to an abrupt end. Moreover the ability of corporate America to provide healthcare as a "benefit" would be threatened severely, removing some of their ability to suppress wages.
Can you show me where all the money is going? Healthcare stocks are not outpacing the S&P. Insurance companies make a profit, but it isn’t 100s of Billions of dollars.
If there is gigantic profits, how come all the associated stocks suck ass.
The money goes to labor, and is distributed across many complex, convoluted systems. An obscene amount of the US populace is employed by the healthcare industry, including myself.
As much as Reddit likes to blame billionaires, the real problem IMO is that we have hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of middle-class professionals who depend on healthcare being inefficient for their livelihoods. That makes it a difficult political problem to solve.
It's a combination of necessarily expensive costs of medical technology as well as massive amounts of administrative bloat that exist to fulfill billing and claims management.
It's because it isn't some giant profit generating scheme. Where is the money going? The money is going towards keeping people alive for longer than what was previous ever possible. That requires enormous resources. There are definitely outsized economic winners, like large hospital systems, but at the same time some hospitals are going bankrupt and closing. The reality is that keeping old, sick people alive as long as possible is expensive.
America spends more then similar nations on healthcare and gets worst results. It is very easy to show it is possible to provide similar or better care for the average user while coasting less.
US healthcare spending is exactly where you would expect given that the US is a very rich country. The US spends more but also gets more healthcare for that money. Other costs being higher are mostly a function of the US being a rich country with high wages and high rents.
It gets very good outcomes from healthcare for that money.
1.) America spends more then other counries both as percentage of GDP and per person.
2.) It is behind in things like maternity mortality, newborn mortality, that sort of thing. The healthcare not being accessible for lower classes is an issue too. America has good healthcare for rich people, but not for poor people.
No you cant explain it just by worst diets and obesity. Nor by shootings - which is the only thing America actually has meaningfully more.
GDP is not the correct way to measure this as the chart I linked showed. Healthcare being a consumer good, rises with consumption spending and not production. Using consumption spending shows the US is not an outlier as well as being better at explaining other countries' outcomes.
US natal mortality is only worse because of different reporting standards and not because healthcare is worse. Source.
Over 90% of people in the US have health insurance and in practice some healthcare is available without insurance. Yes there are gaps in the system but that is true in other countries as well.
Drug deaths and deaths from traffic and other accidents are also very high by western standards.
Not to mention that US capitalism drives R&D, which the rest of the world then benefits from.The US is effectively subsidizing healthcare costs for the rest of the worlds, so of course it is more expensive for the US.
You're disturbing the speaking points. Just go along with it. 5 trillion in Healthcare spend and the clear problem is under 100 billion in health insurance profit
This is my biggest fear with the US healthcare. It's gotten so big, so much money, and lobbying, that there will never be universal healthcare: it's become too big to "dismantle". Insurance is a for profit business. Healthcare needs to be a not for profit service just like the postal service, parks, etc. They take in some extra money to operate, but it's not designed increase shareholder value.
Keeping people alive is expensive. If you look at a graph of lifetime healthcare expenses, most people will incur 90% of their lifetime healthcare costs within their last 2-3 years. 50 years ago when people got very sick they typically died. That was a lot cheaper than what we can do now which typically allows people to live for years longer. There really isn't a good answer to this problem, but if we want to postpone death it's going to cost something.
I love hearing about how boomers are going to have a mass migration of wealth to millennials through inheritance someday.
It’s wild people don’t understand just how costly the last extra few years of life squeezed out does cost. Oh can’t be left alone in your home any more? Guess how much the rent on an assisted living facility is per month. A lot lol.
The alternative is their children taking that role, which can be a big hinderance to their careers. Though it would be interesting to see a breakdown on the total ROI of leaving your job to take care of a family member vs the loss in inheritance.
I can't see this being sustainable in the long-term. I also have to wonder, if the private healthcare system collapses, this will finally force the American government to intervene.
Americans just spend way more on health care for frankly the same quality.
Free market advocates argue that we get better quality but I just don't agree. So many people just skip things like preventative care because of the cost. Notice like so many primary care offices are now almost always ran by a nurse practitioner instead of an actual doctor? And it's not even cheap so you can't even argue we're getting value.
And the metrics like life expectancy and obesity rate I think show there's a flaw in the actual quality of care we're getting.
We're paying more for a worse product. Maybe the ultra Rich actually get better care, but for most people we're just kind of getting shit.
> Americans just spend way more on health care for frankly the same quality.
Worse quality oftentimes, especially around accessibility. One thing that many people don’t realize is that at least in other countries, for non-emergency procedures, you at least get on a list if you need something. In the US, you simply may not be allowed on a list because your insurance company (or for drugs, the PBM) has questions or gives you the run around.
> Free market advocates argue that we get better quality but I just don't agree.
“Free market advocates” is too generous a term. These people are basically corporate propagandists. Nothing about our system is anything like a free market. Even have a market based private system would be better than what we have now. But the coupling of specific health care plans to employers means effectively there is no competition or options for most people.
> So many people just skip things like preventative care because of the cost.
America is fundamentally a reactive country. We’ve essentially developed this thought process of only dealing with problems once they emerge, not worrying about potential issues and the need for regular maintenance. We honestly act like a poor country might, except we have the money to do things and we choose not to. But when we have such big and important systems, that kind of cheap, cavalier attitude will create only disaster.
> Notice like so many primary care offices are now almost always ran by a nurse practitioner instead of an actual doctor? And it's not even cheap so you can't even argue we're getting value.
> And the metrics like life expectancy and obesity rate I think show there's a flaw in the actual quality of care we're getting.
That’s because Republicans don’t care about these things. They might give lip service, but they won’t do anything to actually change it.
> We're paying more for a worse product. Maybe the ultra Rich actually get better care, but for most people we're just kind of getting shit.
They get better care and they also definitely utilize health care systems across the world.
It will never collapse not in the way most people conceptualize of collapse. It will slowly stop serving more and more people's need until one day you end up with a systen that is serviceable to only a small privileged part of society
A proposal for healthcare reform involves a universal, government funded system that removes healthcare as a cost of employment while maintaining private doctors and hospitals. The basic argument is that tying health insurance to jobs raises business costs, distorts hiring decisions, and leaves people vulnerable during unemployment. Instead, healthcare would be treated as a basic public service rather than a fringe benefit.
The core of this plan is a government funded medical debit card issued to every person each year for routine care like doctor visits, tests, and basic treatments. People still choose their own providers, but everyone has guaranteed access. To prevent waste, any money left on the card at the end of the year could be partially returned to the individual as a cash payment. This encourages people to be cost aware and compare prices rather than overusing services. For major illnesses or serious injuries, a separate public catastrophic coverage system would handle high costs so no one is financially ruined by a medical crisis.
For the economy, the government would pay most or all of what employers currently spend on employee insurance. This would effectively raise take home pay, lower business expenses, and fully break the link between employment and health coverage. Companies could then focus on wages and productivity instead of managing complex insurance plans. This shift also aims to be deflationary by cutting out the massive overhead, advertising, and billing departments required by the private insurance industry.
The key constraint in this system is not money but real resources like doctors, nurses, hospital capacity, and medical equipment. By reducing administrative paperwork, doctors would have more time for patients, effectively increasing the supply of care. This is not a traditional single payer system but a hybrid model with universal public funding, private delivery, and strong catastrophic protection where healthcare is treated as a basic right rather than a job tied benefit.
> To prevent waste, any money left on the card at the end of the year could be partially returned to the individual as a cash payment. This encourages people to be cost aware and compare prices rather than overusing services
a system optimizing for... people not going go the doctor?
As long as health insurance is privatized, your health will always be subjugated by greed. There should exist a national socialized insurance which inherently removes the need for capital.
One-fifth of the economy? The redditors complaining in this comment section are literally the cause of this. Between the emotional support prescriptions, SSRI weight gain, and chronic vitamin D deficiency, the GDP goes up every time they log into CVS. They ARE the healthcare economy. By 2035, healthcare will just be an app where you pay your therapist in Reddit karma while doomposting about inflation. Maybe redditors shouldn’t have traded their gym memberships for antidepressants
But they cause other long term health issues and literally shorten your lifespan. Thats why doctors get fat checks everytime they prescribe another victim. After taking these they’ll turn you into a tired and numb hormonally wrecked overweight mess of a human being with blue hair that 100% needs more expensive pills in the future for other ssri induced health issues that come up.
Obvious_Chapter2082 | 17 hours ago
This sounds a bit extreme until you get to the point in the article where it says that it’s currently 18% of the economy. So it’ll just barely outgrow the economy over the next decade, barring no changes
Of course, we should change it though
Churchbushonk | 16 hours ago
Yep, 1/5 the entire economy and we cannot “afford” to setup a national healthcare system.
I say, how can we afford not to?
49orth | 15 hours ago
see also: https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/Canada/Health_spending_as_percent_of_GDP/
nik-nak333 | 6 hours ago
11%? Jesus we are getting hosed in the US
nefrina | 6 hours ago
there's too much money changing hands for things to ever change, never-mind a large group of people being brainwashed to think that private insurance is the better option.
Geno0wl | 4 hours ago
> people being brainwashed to think that private insurance is the better option.
It is funny how people will do nothing but talk about how insanely horrible the insurance companies and entire system is. Almost everybody has a personal anecdote about terrible interactions dealing with insurance.
Yet when talking about removing that system, they turn on a dime to talk about how the world would end with MFA.
Gamer_Grease | 3 hours ago
This is the biggest problem, IMO. And it’s not just rich people. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of middle-class people in this country who derive their incomes from the healthcare system being inefficient.
Major_Shlongage | 4 hours ago
Yes, and they largely fund the campaigns of politicians in both parties about equally.
The "partisan controversy" around healthcare isn't actually a partisan at all. Neither party dares impact these profits because it would instantly result in the defunding of their party.
ahfoo | 5 hours ago
Taiwan spends around 6% to 7.5% and that includes dental. . . for non citizen residents as well.
Jest_out_for_a_Rip | 7 hours ago
We should have a national healthcare system, because it will improve outcomes, but also we shouldn't expect massive savings. Current studies estimate an average savings of 3.9%. It's a reform that will expand access more than reduce costs.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33491150/
Gamer_Grease | 3 hours ago
3.9% at the scale we’re talking about is an absolutely colossal amount of money.
Jest_out_for_a_Rip | 3 hours ago
Sure, but it's also less than the amount of increase that you will see per the article. So, even if implemented tomorrow, costs would continue to rise.
Also, for the average family, I think the cost savings work out to something like $11 a paycheck, per worker.
Again, this is a good policy, but if you put the idea in people's heads that they will save a large sum of money, they are going to be very disappointed by the reality of it.
wronglyzorro | 7 minutes ago
It has never been a money problem why we don’t have it.
Emergency-Style7392 | 15 hours ago
too many unhealthy/old people. You will save more money by halving obesity alone than all the profits of all health insurance companies
hobopwnzor | 13 hours ago
The issue isn't just profits of the insurance companies, it's also that rationing care the way health insurance companies do is a less efficient use of resources.
Less preventative care, wasted doctors time on prior authorizations, inefficiencies in billing, etc.
VoodooS0ldier | 12 hours ago
I swear, going to a dentist should be free. Getting mental health treatment should be free. Gym memberships should be fucking free. We should have a stronger FDA that bans sugary shit at the grocery store. Add a sin tax on sugary shit. Ban corn syrup from being in fucking everything.
hobopwnzor | 12 hours ago
Bro this is an economics sub. You have to pretend that if dentists are free people will just start going for fun because the cost is below its value! /s
Geno0wl | 4 hours ago
People wouldn't go for fun, but just like medical care if you don't put at least some minimal limitations on people using a system then there WILL be frequent fliers. Hypochondriacs don't only do "harm" to themselves they harm everybody by sucking up resources that other people need.
hobopwnzor | 3 hours ago
Yeah that's why you have doctors. The ones who actually gatekeep medical procedures based on evidence and need.
Timelycommentor | 6 hours ago
Anyone can go for a walk or do calisthenics.
Gamer_Grease | 3 hours ago
Strange how countries with centralized healthcare systems also have citizens who walk more. Maybe we should try it.
ObieKaybee | 14 hours ago
They are not mutually exclusive, and considering that insurance companies may make it harder to improve obesity rates, you might need one to satisfy the other.
notapoliticalalt | 12 hours ago
Cool. Surely republicans will offer actually policy solutions for this instead of just yelling at people to eat salad, right? No? Oh…right.
[OP] ThemeBig6731 | 8 hours ago
Only no “word salad” please.
OGLikeablefellow | 11 hours ago
All the money they talk about saving is money that won't go into billionaires pockets. Of course we can't do that!
TropicalKing | 10 hours ago
> You will save more money by halving obesity alone than all the profits of all health insurance companies
Good luck with that. American culture is based on obesity. I recently saw this documentary on McAllen, TX. Asking the people to eat less, eat healthier food, and exercise more is like asking a fish to fly and a bird to swim. Our very cities are based around car ownership and limiting walking.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgu-XOhE5k8
Triple H and WWE representing health just looks bad. A pretend sport about hitting each other, taking bumps, and taking steroids is supposed to represent good health?
As much as RFK wants the US to be healthy again. I doubt much will change besides a few FDA regulations. Our cities aren't going to suddenly change their infrastructure to have better walkability. The people aren't going to suddenly make healthier lifestyle choices and stop taking drugs. Many American problems are because of the people and their culture- and I do have to blame poor health on the people and their culture. There really is no "poof! it's now fixed!" that can be done by government intervention.
DacMon | 8 hours ago
Lol. RFK is making the country less healthy. By far.
Gamer_Grease | 3 hours ago
That has no bearing on the issue because it’s the case either way. It’s a control. Currently, you and I pay for unhealthy people through our insurance, and the old through our Medicare taxes. There is no option—not even paying out-of-pocket—that can insulate you from subsidizing someone whose health is less stable than yours.
ohyeathatsright | 17 hours ago
Would be great to subtract the insurance companies out of that equation.
lovely_sombrero | 16 hours ago
Meanwhile, insurance companies are just printing money. And they are literal rent-seeking corporations, that is their purpose.
more_housing_co-ops | 11 hours ago
Good place to note that rent is probably another two-fifths of the economy even though nothing is materially produced by scalping a home (huh, kinda like health insurance!)
DismaIScientist | 9 hours ago
You think rent is 40% of the economy?
Do you have a source for that?
DismaIScientist | 8 hours ago
Insurance companies make pretty modest profits. Usually around 2-6%
https://www.oliverwyman.com/our-expertise/insights/2025/may/health-insurer-financial-insights-q1-2025.html
This is well.below the S&P 500 profit margin of about 12%.
They clearly have an important social function beyond rent seeking, in terms of both risk sharing and cost control in the health sector. If the US had socialised healthcare they wouldn't need to do that, but since it doesn't someone clearly has to.
Rahien | 4 hours ago
Their profits as a percentage are legally capped. They have learned the way to increase that profit overall is not by percentage, but by increasing the amount pulled in and increasing the amount spent out. The more expensive they make the entire healthcare process the more opportunities to profit by some portion in the middle of the healthcare stream and the more they are allowed to legally profit overall.
DismaIScientist | 4 hours ago
You are saying there is zero competition between insurers?
Rahien | 4 hours ago
What part of what I said would imply that? You seem to be arguing in bad faith.
DismaIScientist | 3 hours ago
If there is competition then if one insurer raises prices then the others can keep their prices the same and gain market share and so become more profitable.
Without collusion, increased prices for consumers is not a stable equilibrium. See Bertrand Competition.
Rahien | 3 hours ago
You didn’t answer my question. Or ask me a question. Just random statements suggesting nothing in good faith as your not making an argument but randomly speaking.
DismaIScientist | 3 hours ago
I am saying the mechanism you propose would require essentially zero competition in the sector for the reason I outlined.
Given there is in fact moderate competition in the sector the mechanism you described is implausible. I linked to the economic theory which supports this argument.
I don't know why you are insisting that I'm arguing in bad faith, frankly there's no need for name calling. I genuinely believe that evidence is clear that health insurers are not the most significant reason for higher US health care costs than other countries. Which is obvious given that many countries have some sort of private insurance component.
StraightArrival5096 | 4 hours ago
They're not but the AMA is calling out the lack of competition and the resulting cost increases
DismaIScientist | 3 hours ago
There are some local markets where competition could be better. But this is clearly not responsible for a substantial portion of health costs. The mechanism they outline is not plausible with even the smallest bit of competition.
StraightArrival5096 | 2 hours ago
Found the insurance pr staff account
DismaIScientist | 2 hours ago
Nope, just an economist who has actually researched this issue.
Hapankaali | 10 hours ago
Most universal health care systems here in Europe have health insurance companies (some private, some semipublic), yet most are far more efficient than the US health care system. Seems the issue is more subtle than just "insurance company bad."
morbie5 | 54 minutes ago
> Most universal health care systems here in Europe have health insurance companies
They are heavily regulated tho. They are almost like government contractors
[OP] ThemeBig6731 | 6 hours ago
Volume of business (numbers of members and claims) handled by insurance companies in those European countries you mentioned is much lower because bulk of the healthcare delivery happens within the universal healthcare system. It is much easier to be efficient at a much smaller scale.
Hapankaali | 5 hours ago
> Volume of business (numbers of members and claims) handled by insurance companies in those European countries you mentioned is much lower because bulk of the healthcare delivery happens within the universal healthcare system.
Some of these universal healthcare systems are more privatized than the American one (e.g., the Swiss system, in which there is no Medicaid or Medicare equivalent - those people are all on private insurance).
> It is much easier to be efficient at a much smaller scale.
No, the opposite is the case, there are (small) efficiencies of scale. If you would have a health care system in, say, a small town, then efficiency is hampered because certain niche treatments/ailments occur so infrequently that it becomes more difficult to set up the delivery chain, train the right specialists, etc.
For a country of millions it basically does not matter.
PublikSkoolGradU8 | 16 hours ago
Insurance companies aren’t in that equation.
Super_Mario_Luigi | 16 hours ago
And you'd save less than 4% of Healthcare spending. And probably add more than that in waste fraud and abuse.
Mindless_Rooster5225 | 15 hours ago
Huh? So private insurance has less fraud and abuse and only cost an extra 4% towards healthcare?
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-spending-u-s-compare-countries/#GDP%20per%20capita%20and%20health%20consumption%20spending%20per%20capita,%20U.S.%20dollars,%202023%20(current%20prices%20and%20PPP%20adjusted)%C2%A0
DismaIScientist | 9 hours ago
https://i0.wp.com/randomcriticalanalysis.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/rcafdm_oecd_income_health_elasticity_2017.png?ssl=1
US healthcare spending is exactly where you would expect given that the US is a very rich country.
It gets very good health outcomes for that money.
https://www.thelancet.com/cms/10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70179-7/asset/22fe4dfb-8ff6-483c-b7ac-f7c0c5643d32/main.assets/gr1_lrg.jpg
Mindless_Rooster5225 | 7 hours ago
Oh yeah real great if you just cherry pick certain cancers. Then you also get this.
https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1pu41x7/14_of_american_families_overwhelmed_by_medical/
We pay twice as much than the average of other high income developed nations. We also don't cover 100% of the population and we have people declaring bankruptcy and getting claims denied. We are also the fattest developed nation in the world. Great healthcare system.
DismaIScientist | 7 hours ago
Not claiming the US system is perfect.
But it is clear that Americans spend more on healthcare than other rich countries because they are buying more and better healthcare in aggregate and they spend around about what you expect given that America is just much richer than other countries. The cancer survival rates were not cherry picked, they were published in the Lancet! They were just an example of how the US system has significantly better outcomes when you isolate the actual impact of healthcare.
Claims get denied in all countries, countries with more government control of healthcare have much more rationing because that's the only way they can possibly work without price signals.
I have no idea why you think obesity is downstream of healthcare. There have not been effective interventions until recently, apart from bariatric surgery which isn't really appropriate en masse.
There are real trade offs here and you may not like the outcome that the American political process has chosen but it is clearly better along several dimensions than alternatives.
Mindless_Rooster5225 | 7 hours ago
No it isn't there's a reason why every developed nation in the world has some sort of universal healthcare system and no other system in the world even resembles our except for Medicare, but they have Medicare for all. Again we pay twice as much and get worst outcomes except for certain cancers. Whoopty do we also die younger and are unhealthier.
> In 2023, the average life expectancy in the U.S. was 78.4 years, compared with 82.5 years among peer nations such as Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and Switzerland. This difference exists despite the United States spending far more per capita on healthcare.
> The study found that premature deaths defined as deaths before age 70, occur at nearly twice the rate in the U.S. (408 per 100,000) as in comparable countries (228 per 100,000).
https://oncodaily.com/insight/us-mortality-rates-exceed-other-wealthy-nations
DismaIScientist | 7 hours ago
No country has anything anywhere even near as generous as what Medicare for all proponents want. They simply wouldn't be able to afford it. Something along those lines would be affordable in the US because the US is much richer but there would be significant trade offs - just like there is with any system.
Mortality rates are not a good way of determining the marginal impact of the healthcare system because of the impact of worse diet, accidents, and violent crimes.
ahfoo | 5 hours ago
You are in denial. Taiwan has free dental for non citizens with a health care system that costs less than 7% ofGDP.
Deadeye313 | 15 hours ago
Elon tried his darnest, probably killed millions, and found little more than pocket change to save...the waste, fraud and abuse is what Trump and Co. Are doing now...
BroughtBagLunchSmart | 8 hours ago
All profit is waste. Centuries of capitalist propaganda disguised as public education has broken our brains.
OnlyInAmerica01 | 6 hours ago
If you go to work expecting more in pay than the cost of gas, you're "profitting" from having unique skills that an employer will pay for. Evil Capitalist!
onions-make-me-cry | 16 hours ago
this is what I came here to say. Without reading the article, I already knew healthcare spending is at 18%, so... basically a 10% increase in 10 years is not that bad.
insightful_pancake | 16 hours ago
It’s just saying American will get older over next 10 years. Old people need more hc
Which-Sun-3746 | 15 hours ago
Makes you realize US GDP is largely a sham. A $5,000 ER trip cost $50 in Thailand. Is the US ER trip 100 times more productive to the economy? US GDP needs to include a healthcare deflator in the calculation.
coconutpiecrust | 15 hours ago
And none of it will go to the actual people who provide healthcare, will it? Perhaps some will go to the doctors, but I assume most will go to administrators and insurance companies, or entities who provide exactly zero care to anyone who is sick.
makemeking706 | 16 hours ago
Too big to change at that point.
pzerr | 4 hours ago
We are already struggling and borrowing about half that money to maintain it. This is not inflation where the collective amount is increasing as expected, it is a percentage of the economy and if anything we need it to decrease.
Right now as it is, every two weeks you work, about two days goes directly towards medical services. There are a lot of other costs we also have to pay for.
dust4ngel | 23 minutes ago
> Of course, we should change it though
this guy wants to drop the GDP by 20%, get him
petepro | 15 hours ago
So, it’s just when there are more old people, more people pay for healthcare.
TrailJunky | 17 hours ago
Someone should convince Trump to make "trump care" by rebranding Medicare. It might just work. I dont give a fuck what it is named. That can be changed later.
lovely_sombrero | 16 hours ago
Trump is the only president where such a stupid strategy might actually work, but no one who wants to do that actually has access to him. That is why it was crazy to expect Trump to "fix trade" or "fix Obamacare" in his first term, where an average Trump cabinet member was a GW Bush guy at best, or someone who believed that GW Bush was a leftist at worst.
PopularRain6150 | 16 hours ago
Medicare for All:
Covers everyone, automatically: Ends the “insured vs. uninsured” split, so nobody falls through the cracks because they changed jobs, got sick, moved, or missed paperwork.
Kills medical bankruptcy: Medical bills stop being a leading reason people go broke, because basic care isn’t tied to your credit limit.
Cheaper, simpler admin: One set of rules and billing dramatically reduces the “paperwork tax” (insurers, prior auth armies, coding games, network gymnastics).
Bigger bargaining power = lower prices: A single large payer can negotiate down hospital charges and drug prices the way other rich countries do.
Freedom from job-lock: People can leave bad jobs, start businesses, go freelance, or retire earlier without losing health coverage.
No surprise out-of-network landmines: Networks stop being a booby-trap; you don’t get punished because the anesthesiologist “wasn’t in network.”
Earlier care, fewer expensive crises: When people can see a doctor sooner, you catch problems before they become ER disasters and ICU-level bills.
More consistent mental health + addiction treatment: Makes ongoing care easier to access, which reduces downstream costs in homelessness, incarceration, and ER use.
Healthier workforce, higher productivity: Fewer untreated conditions means fewer missed workdays, less disability, and better long-run economic output.
More predictable costs for families: Replaces premium roulette with a clearer, more stable way of paying (instead of “this year the premium doubled again”).
Narrower racial and income health gaps: Universal access reduces disparities driven by coverage differences and delayed treatment.
Less time fighting insurance, more time practicing medicine: Clinicians spend less time on denials and prior authorizations and more time on actual care.
Accidental-Genius | 22 minutes ago
This only works if you kill EMTALA along with this implementation. Otherwise you just wind up with non-functional ER’s and no PCPs.
StrebLab | 16 hours ago
I agree with most all of this with the exception of "medical bankruptcy." The term is a huge misnomer and doesn't describe what people think it is describing.
"Bankruptcy due to medical condition" is one of the leading causes of bankruptcy but the vast majority isn't because of medical bills. The largest driver is actually due to the fact that the category also includes loss of income due to inability to work due to medical condition, which then leads to inability to pay bills and ultimately bankruptcy. It's not impossible for medical bills to cause bankruptcy, but it would be extremely rare.
PopularRain6150 | 13 hours ago
In the national study of 2007 U.S. bankruptcy filers (Himmelstein et al., American Journal of Medicine, 2009), 54.9% said medical/drug costs contributed and 37.8% cited illness-related income loss. 95% of filers who reported illness-related income loss also had high medical bills.
United States: adult patients + caregivers spent ~USD $180 to $2,600 per month out of pocket (across studies/cancers).
Canada: ~USD $15 to $400 per month out of pocket (across studies/cancers).
Note that early access to treatment prevents major diseasess.
And universal healthcare helps people go in early rather than delay treatment….. and everyone is covered
dust4ngel | 22 minutes ago
> The largest driver is actually due to the fact that the category also includes loss of income due to inability to work due to medical condition
due to... being unable to afford medical care.
[OP] ThemeBig6731 | 17 hours ago
In late 2025, healthcare spending grew faster than any other sector, contributing significantly to economic expansion.
The healthcare sector has replaced manufacturing and retail as a primary source of U.S. employment growth, absorbing a large portion of the workforce.
More money is going towards prescription drugs, procedures, and insurance premiums, driving consumer spending.
Frylock304 | 16 hours ago
and hospitals are cutting staff
dayburner | 16 hours ago
That's because all the money is going into long term care facilities. The Boomers are quickly aging into various care facilities where the cost is huge, you're starting at $5,000 a month just for basic room and board. If you need additional care or memory care those numbers really take off.
Z3r0sama2017 | 11 hours ago
And yet they whine about having to sell their home to pay for it.
dayburner | 5 hours ago
Because, you work hard to leave something for your family.
Gamer_Grease | 3 hours ago
A home can be a retirement vehicle or it can be multi-generational wealth. It can’t be both.
Skeptical0ptimist | 16 hours ago
I’m sure ‘healthcare sectors’ jobs are more than medical practitioners. Administrative staff, lawyers, marketing/sales, accountants, managers, VPs, etc. in the insurance companies are also included in the statistics.
Rattlingjoint | 16 hours ago
Its likely more driven by growth in PCAs and nurses aids. America is getting older and home health aides are in crazy demand because of it. Agencies around me will literally hire anyone because there is so much demand.
crazycatlady331 | 15 hours ago
And they make peanuts. I know that CNAs make close to minimum wage.
[OP] ThemeBig6731 | 8 hours ago
But anesthesiologist assistants make $200k a year!
NICEMENTALHEALTHPAL | 12 hours ago
Trans procedures, ozempic, TRT, antidepressants.
You should take drugs to change what your body looks like! You need to change, but do it by spending $$$!
CauliflowerLife | 3 hours ago
Most common antidepressants are generic and cost pennies these days.
Rodot | 3 hours ago
Antidepressants are dirt cheap compared to the big money pharmaceuticals which are oncology drugs. Most antidepressants are generic now
DICKPICDOUG | 16 hours ago
And here we see clearly why business interests and politicians are so opposed to a universal healthcare system. Health insurance makes big money, and the healthcare system in general is a giant money pit designed to suck all the wealth out of the lower classes and funnel it upward. If the government were to step in, regulate pricing, and guarantee care the gravy train comes to an abrupt end. Moreover the ability of corporate America to provide healthcare as a "benefit" would be threatened severely, removing some of their ability to suppress wages.
Churchbushonk | 16 hours ago
Can you show me where all the money is going? Healthcare stocks are not outpacing the S&P. Insurance companies make a profit, but it isn’t 100s of Billions of dollars.
If there is gigantic profits, how come all the associated stocks suck ass.
misty_mustard | 15 hours ago
The money goes to labor, and is distributed across many complex, convoluted systems. An obscene amount of the US populace is employed by the healthcare industry, including myself.
Gamer_Grease | 3 hours ago
As much as Reddit likes to blame billionaires, the real problem IMO is that we have hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of middle-class professionals who depend on healthcare being inefficient for their livelihoods. That makes it a difficult political problem to solve.
exalted985451 | 8 hours ago
It's a combination of necessarily expensive costs of medical technology as well as massive amounts of administrative bloat that exist to fulfill billing and claims management.
StrebLab | 16 hours ago
It's because it isn't some giant profit generating scheme. Where is the money going? The money is going towards keeping people alive for longer than what was previous ever possible. That requires enormous resources. There are definitely outsized economic winners, like large hospital systems, but at the same time some hospitals are going bankrupt and closing. The reality is that keeping old, sick people alive as long as possible is expensive.
DismaIScientist | 8 hours ago
The most trivially true comments get down voted here.
Who are these people who think health costs are cheap?
They think healthcare isn't a very skilled job which requires laying high wages to renumerate those skills?
They think medical equipment isn't very specialised, technologically advanced and with limited lifespans?
They think it isn't incredibly expensive to discover new drugs and prove they are safe and effective?
They think round the clock medical care for the very oldest patients with more staff than patients doesn't cost money?
Nah, it is the health insurance companies with their 4% profits.
unsafeideas | 4 hours ago
America spends more then similar nations on healthcare and gets worst results. It is very easy to show it is possible to provide similar or better care for the average user while coasting less.
DismaIScientist | 4 hours ago
https://i0.wp.com/randomcriticalanalysis.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/rcafdm_oecd_income_health_elasticity_2017.png?ssl=1
US healthcare spending is exactly where you would expect given that the US is a very rich country. The US spends more but also gets more healthcare for that money. Other costs being higher are mostly a function of the US being a rich country with high wages and high rents.
It gets very good outcomes from healthcare for that money.
https://www.thelancet.com/cms/10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70179-7/asset/22fe4dfb-8ff6-483c-b7ac-f7c0c5643d32/main.assets/gr1_lrg.jpg
Differences in mortality are explained by other factors including worse diets, more accidental deaths and more violent crime.
unsafeideas | 4 hours ago
1.) America spends more then other counries both as percentage of GDP and per person.
2.) It is behind in things like maternity mortality, newborn mortality, that sort of thing. The healthcare not being accessible for lower classes is an issue too. America has good healthcare for rich people, but not for poor people.
No you cant explain it just by worst diets and obesity. Nor by shootings - which is the only thing America actually has meaningfully more.
DismaIScientist | 3 hours ago
GDP is not the correct way to measure this as the chart I linked showed. Healthcare being a consumer good, rises with consumption spending and not production. Using consumption spending shows the US is not an outlier as well as being better at explaining other countries' outcomes.
US natal mortality is only worse because of different reporting standards and not because healthcare is worse. Source.
Over 90% of people in the US have health insurance and in practice some healthcare is available without insurance. Yes there are gaps in the system but that is true in other countries as well.
Drug deaths and deaths from traffic and other accidents are also very high by western standards.
StrebLab | 3 hours ago
Not to mention that US capitalism drives R&D, which the rest of the world then benefits from.The US is effectively subsidizing healthcare costs for the rest of the worlds, so of course it is more expensive for the US.
Super_Mario_Luigi | 16 hours ago
You're disturbing the speaking points. Just go along with it. 5 trillion in Healthcare spend and the clear problem is under 100 billion in health insurance profit
Accidental-Genius | 13 minutes ago
It actually functions as a de facto estate tax on the upper middle class more than anything.
Haagen76 | 11 hours ago
This is my biggest fear with the US healthcare. It's gotten so big, so much money, and lobbying, that there will never be universal healthcare: it's become too big to "dismantle". Insurance is a for profit business. Healthcare needs to be a not for profit service just like the postal service, parks, etc. They take in some extra money to operate, but it's not designed increase shareholder value.
StrebLab | 16 hours ago
Keeping people alive is expensive. If you look at a graph of lifetime healthcare expenses, most people will incur 90% of their lifetime healthcare costs within their last 2-3 years. 50 years ago when people got very sick they typically died. That was a lot cheaper than what we can do now which typically allows people to live for years longer. There really isn't a good answer to this problem, but if we want to postpone death it's going to cost something.
Stunning-Edge-3007 | 10 hours ago
I love hearing about how boomers are going to have a mass migration of wealth to millennials through inheritance someday.
It’s wild people don’t understand just how costly the last extra few years of life squeezed out does cost. Oh can’t be left alone in your home any more? Guess how much the rent on an assisted living facility is per month. A lot lol.
Rodot | 3 hours ago
The alternative is their children taking that role, which can be a big hinderance to their careers. Though it would be interesting to see a breakdown on the total ROI of leaving your job to take care of a family member vs the loss in inheritance.
jayfeather31 | 16 hours ago
I can't see this being sustainable in the long-term. I also have to wonder, if the private healthcare system collapses, this will finally force the American government to intervene.
Overall, however, this isn't great.
RepentantSororitas | 16 hours ago
It's definitely an efficiency problem.
Americans just spend way more on health care for frankly the same quality.
Free market advocates argue that we get better quality but I just don't agree. So many people just skip things like preventative care because of the cost. Notice like so many primary care offices are now almost always ran by a nurse practitioner instead of an actual doctor? And it's not even cheap so you can't even argue we're getting value.
And the metrics like life expectancy and obesity rate I think show there's a flaw in the actual quality of care we're getting.
We're paying more for a worse product. Maybe the ultra Rich actually get better care, but for most people we're just kind of getting shit.
notapoliticalalt | 11 hours ago
> Americans just spend way more on health care for frankly the same quality.
Worse quality oftentimes, especially around accessibility. One thing that many people don’t realize is that at least in other countries, for non-emergency procedures, you at least get on a list if you need something. In the US, you simply may not be allowed on a list because your insurance company (or for drugs, the PBM) has questions or gives you the run around.
> Free market advocates argue that we get better quality but I just don't agree.
“Free market advocates” is too generous a term. These people are basically corporate propagandists. Nothing about our system is anything like a free market. Even have a market based private system would be better than what we have now. But the coupling of specific health care plans to employers means effectively there is no competition or options for most people.
> So many people just skip things like preventative care because of the cost.
America is fundamentally a reactive country. We’ve essentially developed this thought process of only dealing with problems once they emerge, not worrying about potential issues and the need for regular maintenance. We honestly act like a poor country might, except we have the money to do things and we choose not to. But when we have such big and important systems, that kind of cheap, cavalier attitude will create only disaster.
> Notice like so many primary care offices are now almost always ran by a nurse practitioner instead of an actual doctor? And it's not even cheap so you can't even argue we're getting value.
> And the metrics like life expectancy and obesity rate I think show there's a flaw in the actual quality of care we're getting.
That’s because Republicans don’t care about these things. They might give lip service, but they won’t do anything to actually change it.
> We're paying more for a worse product. Maybe the ultra Rich actually get better care, but for most people we're just kind of getting shit.
They get better care and they also definitely utilize health care systems across the world.
Wutang4TheChildren23 | 13 hours ago
It will never collapse not in the way most people conceptualize of collapse. It will slowly stop serving more and more people's need until one day you end up with a systen that is serviceable to only a small privileged part of society
MajorAlanDutch | 16 hours ago
A proposal for healthcare reform involves a universal, government funded system that removes healthcare as a cost of employment while maintaining private doctors and hospitals. The basic argument is that tying health insurance to jobs raises business costs, distorts hiring decisions, and leaves people vulnerable during unemployment. Instead, healthcare would be treated as a basic public service rather than a fringe benefit.
The core of this plan is a government funded medical debit card issued to every person each year for routine care like doctor visits, tests, and basic treatments. People still choose their own providers, but everyone has guaranteed access. To prevent waste, any money left on the card at the end of the year could be partially returned to the individual as a cash payment. This encourages people to be cost aware and compare prices rather than overusing services. For major illnesses or serious injuries, a separate public catastrophic coverage system would handle high costs so no one is financially ruined by a medical crisis.
For the economy, the government would pay most or all of what employers currently spend on employee insurance. This would effectively raise take home pay, lower business expenses, and fully break the link between employment and health coverage. Companies could then focus on wages and productivity instead of managing complex insurance plans. This shift also aims to be deflationary by cutting out the massive overhead, advertising, and billing departments required by the private insurance industry.
The key constraint in this system is not money but real resources like doctors, nurses, hospital capacity, and medical equipment. By reducing administrative paperwork, doctors would have more time for patients, effectively increasing the supply of care. This is not a traditional single payer system but a hybrid model with universal public funding, private delivery, and strong catastrophic protection where healthcare is treated as a basic right rather than a job tied benefit.
dust4ngel | 20 minutes ago
> To prevent waste, any money left on the card at the end of the year could be partially returned to the individual as a cash payment. This encourages people to be cost aware and compare prices rather than overusing services
a system optimizing for... people not going go the doctor?
Tess47 | 9 hours ago
Ugh. People are not a constant. This big group will begin massive die offs in 2030-35.
And then we will have a lot of fraud because there are many small businesses built to help the elderly and not enough elderly.
geomaster | 7 hours ago
looks like the healthcare administrators are thrilled they can sap up more resources out of an economy while providing substandard healthcare outcomes
Aubrey_D_Graham | 3 hours ago
As long as health insurance is privatized, your health will always be subjugated by greed. There should exist a national socialized insurance which inherently removes the need for capital.
adderallanddietcoke | 7 hours ago
One-fifth of the economy? The redditors complaining in this comment section are literally the cause of this. Between the emotional support prescriptions, SSRI weight gain, and chronic vitamin D deficiency, the GDP goes up every time they log into CVS. They ARE the healthcare economy. By 2035, healthcare will just be an app where you pay your therapist in Reddit karma while doomposting about inflation. Maybe redditors shouldn’t have traded their gym memberships for antidepressants
CauliflowerLife | 3 hours ago
Antidepressants are one of the cheapest classes of drugs you can get, including other types besides SSRI
adderallanddietcoke | 2 hours ago
But they cause other long term health issues and literally shorten your lifespan. Thats why doctors get fat checks everytime they prescribe another victim. After taking these they’ll turn you into a tired and numb hormonally wrecked overweight mess of a human being with blue hair that 100% needs more expensive pills in the future for other ssri induced health issues that come up.
ConsistentRegion6184 | 16 hours ago
Don't tell me you wouldn't trust a robot with medical records and a scalpel more than your daily commute.
I'm pretty sure AI and next-gen tech will move to healthcare to soak up profits when it fails at mass adoption everywhere else.
[OP] ThemeBig6731 | 16 hours ago
Healthcare is the most difficult sector for next-gen tech to move into successfully.
ConsistentRegion6184 | 16 hours ago
Oh ok.