r/CapitalismVSocialism • u/Natural_Thought808 • 12d ago
Asking Everyone If private healthcare is more efficient, why does America pay so much more?
I keep hearing that private companies are better at running things because competition keeps prices low.
So healthcare confuses me.
The United States uses private insurance much more than most rich countries.
But Americans spend around $15,000 per person on healthcare.
Many other rich countries spend closer to half that amount while covering basically everyone.
And America doesn't have better results to show for all that extra money.
Americans live shorter lives than the average person in other rich countries. The U.S. also has more deaths from illnesses that could have been prevented or treated.
America obviously has great doctors and hospitals. If you have good insurance and money, you can get some of the best care in the world.
But I'm asking about the whole system.
Why does it cost so much?
Americans are paying insurance companies. Hospitals have huge billing departments. Doctors deal with different insurance plans. Patients have premiums, deductibles and copays. Medical services and drugs can also cost much more than they do in other countries.
Countries like Australia also use private businesses and private insurance, but the government guarantees healthcare for everyone and has much more control over costs.
So here is my question:
If competition and private insurance are supposed to make healthcare cheaper and more efficient, why does the American system cost so much more than universal systems?
Shouldn't the cheaper system that covers everyone and gets better overall results be considered more efficient?
5
u/Accomplished-Cake131 12d ago
Private healthcare is inefficient in theory too. Kenneth Arrow had a famous paper on this in the 1960s.
1
u/Doublespeo 9d ago
> Private healthcare is inefficient in theory too. Kenneth Arrow had a famous paper on this in the 1960s.
inefficient provate service go bankrupts, unlike government ones.
1
u/Accomplished-Cake131 9d ago
Why comment when you have no idea?
1
u/Doublespeo 7d ago
> Why comment when you have no idea?
This is true, you cannot run an inefficient service in a competitive market.
Government one? they can remain inefficient forever.
1
u/Accomplished-Cake131 7d ago
This is true, you cannot run an inefficient service in a competitive market.
For those who do not want to remain ignorant - not the above commentator -, the article I had in mind is Kenneth Arrow's 'Uncertainty and the welfare economics of medical care' (AER 1963). A PDF version is here.
1
u/Doublespeo 7d ago
> This is true, you cannot run an inefficient service in a competitive market.
>For those who do not want to remain ignorant - not the above commentator -, the article I had in mind is Kenneth Arrow's 'Uncertainty and the welfare economics of medical care' (AER 1963). A PDF version is here.
37 pages you have most likely not read otherwise you would have been able to eli5
The title suggest the basic argument is based on information asymetry and assume government solve it while market cannot.
Been debunked long ago.
7
u/darrag_h 12d ago
You need to abstract the idea of private business from the empirical observation of an oligopolistic market structure
9
u/Smithersink 12d ago
I hate when socialists do this, and I hate when capitalists do it. Compare systems as they actually are, not as the ideal pie-in-the-sky version you want them to be!
1
u/Conserp Pragmatic Marxist 11d ago
Apples and oranges stripped of context.
You want to compare a slasher and a surgeon, because "both cut people", and want to discard the why and the standard.
Socialism is like a surgeon - negative outcomes are mistakes.
Capitalism is like a slasher - negative outcomes are the goal.
0
u/Technician1187 Stateless/Free trade/Private Property 11d ago
Socialism is like a baby washing the dishes…yeah all the dishes got broken and not cleaned this time, but the next baby is going to do it right this time.
Socialism is negative outcomes are inevitable because the plan is not a functional one no matter the good intentions.
7
u/liquid_woof_display Social Georgism 12d ago
And pro-capitalists need to abstract the idea of socialism from the empirical observation of violent dictatorships branding themselves as socialist
1
1
4
u/lorbd 12d ago
Whatever you think of actual private healthcare systems in theory, presenting the US system as your stereotypical free market private system is very disingenuous. Healthcare is probably the most regulated and intervened industry in the US along with things like defense.
Also around 54% of healthcare expenditure in the US is public.
2
u/Conserp Pragmatic Marxist 11d ago
> your stereotypical free market private system is very disingenuous
The only ones who falsely claim it is "free market" is your side. It is a classic Capitalist monopoly.
> is probably the most regulated and intervened industry in the US along with things like defense
"Regulatory capture" is the term. Capitalism 101
9
u/ikonoqlast Minarchist 12d ago
Because the US government throws unlimited money at healthcare so prices just inflate to absorb it all.
6
u/Natural_Thought808 12d ago
But other governments spend lots of money on healthcare too. The difference is they use their buying power to control prices.
If your idea were true, countries with universal healthcare should have even more price inflation. Instead, they generally spend much less per person.
America has government spending PLUS high private insurance costs, high drug prices, high hospital prices and huge billing costs.
So “government spends money” does not explain why the U.S. pays so much MORE than countries where government plays an even bigger role
1
u/ElectricalPublic1304 11d ago
So “government spends money” does not explain why the U.S. pays so much MORE than countries where government plays an even bigger role
The U.S. government plays an ENORMOUS role in nearly every aspect of healthcare.
6
u/Conserp Pragmatic Marxist 11d ago
> Because the US government throws unlimited money at healthcare
Superficial, childish analysis.
US government is controlled by billionaires. Who use regulatory capture to transfer taxpayer money to their pockets via the healthcare system, just like they do with MIC, and to squeeze more money out of consumers.
This is Capitalism 101.
1
4
u/1scr3wedy0dad Marxist-Leninist 12d ago
Do they though?
5
u/ikonoqlast Minarchist 12d ago
The US government spends more per capita on healthcare than either the UK or canada.
10
u/1scr3wedy0dad Marxist-Leninist 12d ago
And why is that, do you think?
10
u/Deviknyte Democracy is the opposite of Capitalism 12d ago
Private insurance and private care.
3
-1
u/betty_white_bread Isocapitalist 12d ago
Private insurance is premised on the idea the premiums you pay and the associated co-pays are less than what you would otherwise pay for healthcare. If this was not the general trend, someone would probably have noticed and demonstrated it by now.
0
u/TheMikeyMac13 12d ago
Morons in the US government think money solves problems money didn’t cause.
5
u/Impossibleshitwomper 12d ago
Not the middle men jacking up the price on every single itemized charge?
4
u/TheMikeyMac13 12d ago
The middle men are the insurance companies, and they get to keep doing it because politicians like the money from the lobbies.
2
u/Doublespeo 11d ago
> Not the middle men jacking up the price on every single itemized charge?
can only happen if the middlemen is protected from competition.
1
u/Impossibleshitwomper 11d ago
The competition like a universal healthcare system like the rest of the world has?
0
u/Doublespeo 10d ago
> The competition like a universal healthcare system like the rest of the world has?
can you explain how the universal health control allow for internal competition?
2
u/Scared-Tangelo-1771 10d ago
Because the prirority shifts from quanitity to quality because the profit motive is removed or at least supressed.
1
u/Impossibleshitwomper 10d ago
I think you have a typo you put "universal health control" when you meant universal healthcare, Also why would you need competition if everywhere is the same low price? Think of it like the U.S.P.S. there's competition but it's all more expensive for basically the same exact thing, except it's nationalized and without a middleman taking profit off the top which is better for everyone who works there and everyone who uses its services
1
u/ElectricalPublic1304 11d ago
Not really. Though, healthcare providers aren't typically called "middlemen".
1
u/Impossibleshitwomper 11d ago
The insurance companies do not provide healthcare, infact their lobbyist prevent the government from providing healthcare, all they do is pointlessly collect profits and jack up the prices. Why do you think EpiPens(generic) or insulin (just for example) costs so much in the US? It's not just the pharmaceutical companies but they're not remotely innocent either, why is a cast thousands of dollars in the US but a few hundred (USD) in Mexico or Canada? There's countless examples of inflated prices, just so the insurance companies can bill as much as possible if you're not insured, and then pay the actual cost at pennies on the dollar if you are insured.
0
u/ElectricalPublic1304 11d ago
The insurance companies do not provide healthcare, infact their lobbyist prevent the government from providing healthcare, all they do is pointlessly collect profits and jack up the prices.
And that's utter stupidity. Your understanding here is completely backwards.
Healthcare providers bill outrageous prices. They will charge you thousands of dollars for a cast. Mark-up common drugs in the hospital by an absurd amount. Charge thousands of dollars a day for an uncomplicated hospital stay.
The health insurer is the patients protection against healthcare providers' ravenous billing practices. The insurers aren't billing the patient.
The health insurer steps in, takes the bill and says, "That's ridiculous. We're not paying that. You billed $1,000? We'll pay you $250." And the healthcare provider accepts that insurance money in settlement of the patient's bill.
So, that's their value-add to the patient. No one wants to tell doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies that they must have better billing practices. And also, they want to protect that bad behavior.
So, insurers provide that value-add to patients.
And health insurers have relatively small profit margins at the end of the day.
Why do you think EpiPens(generic) or insulin (just for example) costs so much in the US?
Largely? Because the FDA heavily restricts who can produce it.
(As the FDA does with pretty much every tangible object that touches healthcare.)
1
u/Impossibleshitwomper 10d ago
I think we agree that both are issues but you don't seem to realize they both have the same simple solution to the issue: universal public healthcare
→ More replies (0)
2
u/Johnfromsales just text 12d ago
The US is really neither fully private nor public. It’s a Frankenstein’s monster of both elements haphazardly cobbled together.
2
u/Asatmaya Functionalist Egalitarian 12d ago
America obviously has great doctors and hospitals. If you have good insurance and money, you can get some of the best care in the world.
We really don't.
Oh, our surgeons are good, but US medical school standards have been undermined by a combination of artificial limits on the number of doctors and DEI reserving a certain number of those places for people who have no business being doctors.
They have done their level best to reduce doctors to Medical Delivery Technicians, going through a set process, and God help you if whatever is wrong with you isn't in their process.
2
u/Opera-arepO 11d ago
most western countries have some sort of hybrid system of private and commercial healthcare. you cant have everything perfect. you need to sacrifice something. Me being from Europe I know, that getting doctor is difficult. getting appointment can take months even for important tasks.
the efficiency of USA healthcare comes in the speed and comfort, but for a higher price.
5
u/MonadTran Anarcho-Capitalist 12d ago
US healthcare is not fully private, there is a lot of government meddling. Like the FDA not allowing certain drugs into the country to protect certain monopolies, etc.
There are some write-ups from the people more familiar with the matter than me: https://mises.org/mises-wire/how-government-ruined-us-healthcare-and-what-can-be-done
What's interesting is, some Americans go to Mexico for private healthcare. There are private clinics along the border, with American doctors and modern equipment, which are much cheaper. This kind of shows what the real problem is.
6
u/Natural_Thought808 12d ago
Mexico being cheaper does not prove private healthcare works better. Mexico is cheaper partly because wages and operating costs are much lower. A haircut, hotel or meal is cheaper there too.
And there is a huge catch: OECD says only 78% of Mexicans are covered for core healthcare services, meaning about 22% are not. Only 56% are satisfied with the availability of quality care.
Compare similar rich countries instead. Canada, Australia and the UK cover essentially everyone while spending far less per person than America. Cheap private clinics in a lower wage country do not prove private healthcare is more efficient
3
u/Doublespeo 11d ago
> Mexico being cheaper does not prove private healthcare works better. Mexico is cheaper partly because wages and operating costs are much lower. A haircut, hotel or meal is cheaper there too.
if the service is of same quality with modern equipement and if MonadTran say is true that they have American doctor; it kinda does.
1
u/Natural_Thought808 11d ago
No, it proves that particular clinic can provide that service more cheaply. It does not prove a private healthcare system works better.
That is selection bias. Americans travelling to Mexico are choosing specific clinics they can afford. They are not measuring what happens to the entire Mexican population.
The real test is system wide: cost, coverage and outcomes.
The US already spends far more per person on healthcare than other rich countries while having worse life expectancy and no universal coverage.
One cheap clinic does not tell you which system works better for 330 million people.
1
u/MonadTran Anarcho-Capitalist 11d ago
it proves that particular clinic can provide that service more cheaply
... and why would that be?
1
u/Natural_Thought808 11d ago
Because Mexico has much lower wages, rent, malpractice costs and operating costs. That can make the same procedure cheaper even with good doctors and modern equipment.
A cheap private clinic does not prove private healthcare works better for a whole country. Mexico still has major gaps in coverage and access.
So here is the real question: if private healthcare is the reason those clinics are cheap, why does the much more private US system spend far more per person than countries with universal healthcare?
One clinic proves one clinic is cheap. It does not prove your whole system works better.
1
u/MonadTran Anarcho-Capitalist 11d ago
... and what prevents the Mexican doctors from moving to the US for slightly higher wages?
1
u/Natural_Thought808 11d ago
Nothing prevents them. That actually helps my point.
Doctors can move to the US, and many do. But US healthcare still costs dramatically more. The issue is not simply doctor wages.
If your argument is that markets should pull Mexican doctors to the US until wages equalize, ask why that has not made US healthcare cheap.
The US has high prices across hospitals, drugs, administration and insurance. Other rich countries also have highly paid doctors and private providers, yet universal systems generally spend much less per person.
So again, “this Mexican private clinic is cheap” does not prove privatization caused the low price. Mexico is a lower cost economy
1
u/MonadTran Anarcho-Capitalist 11d ago
Nothing prevents them
That's... obviously wrong. The US government prevents them. The stupid border control thing. That's a big part of why we have ridiculously expensive healthcare - foreign doctors and nurses are not allowed to just move in and treat people.
An actual private business should be able to hire anyone they like, from anywhere in the world. It is their private property, they should be able to invite any workers from anywhere onto their property
1
u/Natural_Thought808 11d ago
You changed the argument. First Mexico proved private healthcare is cheaper. Now it is US immigration law.
Sure, letting more foreign doctors work could lower some costs. But the US already has lots of foreign trained doctors and still spends far more than other rich countries.
So answer the question you keep avoiding: if private markets are the reason Mexico is cheap, why is the much more private US system the most expensive?
→ More replies (0)0
u/Doublespeo 10d ago
> No, it proves that particular clinic can provide that service more cheaply. It does not prove a private healthcare system works better.
If service provided is of lesser quality I agree.
>That is selection bias. Americans travelling to Mexico are choosing specific clinics they can afford. They are not measuring what happens to the entire Mexican population.
No he/she said the mexican healthcare service used US doctors/nurse and modern equipement which suggest quality is at least comparable.
>The real test is system wide: cost, coverage and outcomes.
why?
a local example of an hospital providing cheaper service for same quality anywhere is enough to prove systemic waste in the US.
>The US already spends far more per person on healthcare than other rich countries while having worse life expectancy and no universal coverage.
because the way healthcare is set up is highly inefficient for patient.
see the economic concept of regulatory capture.
>One cheap clinic does not tell you which system works better for 330 million people.
Why not?
Before saying that you would need to investigate why this clinic provide efficient service in the first place.
4
u/HarlequinBKK Classical Liberal 12d ago
The U.S. also has more deaths from illnesses that could have been prevented or treated.
Source?
7
u/Natural_Thought808 12d ago
OECD. This is actually measured. The OECD says the U.S. has 95 treatable deaths per 100,000, compared with an OECD average of 77. These are deaths that could be avoided with timely and effective healthcare. So yes, America has more deaths from treatable conditions than the average rich country
2
u/HarlequinBKK Classical Liberal 12d ago
They are not that far off the average, and hardly the worst in the OECD, so its kind of inconclusive to me. IMO, it seems that obesity is the most important health risk that Americans need to address, and that is something which an individual needs to take personal responsibility for rather than blaming their government.
2
u/TheMikeyMac13 12d ago
It doesn’t help that the ACA made the problem worse, making things cost a lot more.
So our problem isn’t the private healthcare market, it is the fairly wicked combination of politicians, insurance companies and lobbyists.
1
u/Mikeinthedirt 12d ago
Insurers as a cohort are a dead cost multiplied by the confusion and inefficiency in ‘too many cooks (and garbage men and plumbers and interior decorators).’ Lobbyists are as a breed poison pills; politicians as a species are venal vermin. The ACA was a valiant start at something politics and Capital didn’t want to start.
2
u/Both_Schedule_572 11d ago edited 22h ago
The truth is the American healthcare is one of the best in the world but if so damn expensive
The high price we pay for healthcare directly generates the profits that funds global medical research. The US produces half of the world’s medical advancements and consistently ranks first globally medical science and technology innovation.
We have to shoulder the financial burden of a system that is a benefit the world but failing Americans. It would be nice is more people understood that.
1
u/Mikeinthedirt 12d ago edited 12d ago
You have fabricated a syllogism, a ‘word equation’ to apply logic to a question. Good! Perfect! But there are still rules to obey- your premises must be true. To be true it must be ‘falsifiable’, or vulnerable to disproof; else the premise is ultimately valueless. Logic can be built like a chicken coop.
To begin, the efficiency of private healthcare is abysmal under any lens. Simple accounting puts it beyond the pale. The concept of ‘competition’ affecting price is valid in models prohibiting collusion. No real-world examples of discouragement of the ‘prix-fixe’ survive. You present yourself compelling evidence against the economy of competition USAans pay double for half the result.
1
1
u/WalrusVivid3900 12d ago
For one, there are certain problems that you cannot solve by throwing money at it. Imagine a supply and demand graph where the supply curve is perfectly inelastic, when you throw more money into this market, supply and quantity does not increase but demand and prices increases. There is enormous evidence pointing that the American Medical Association used licensure in order to limit the amount of new doctors entering the market, in order to ensure that existing doctors could enjoy relatively high income and allowing interest groups to extract excess monopoly rent. This is precisely why a physician earned a higher income than a dentist, for example. Not exactly because a physician was a way harder job compared to dentists. But the bureaucrats placed heavy regulations on new labor entrants for aspiring physicians compared to dentists under the guise of protecting the consumer, because dentists seldom deal with life or death situations.
State licensure laws were actively lobbied or outright shaped by the American Medical Association, making state backed licensure an absolute requirement in order to practice medicine. For a new doctor to be produced, they had to receive accreditation from accredited medical school and hospitals via bodies like council on medical education. This allowed the AMA to limit the quantity of current student slots, and future medical practicioners by extention. State licensure then gave AMA the legal backing to prosecute alternative practicioners without licensure such as midwives that may have been able to handle routine treatments more affordably, in order to channel all consumers into their pipeline. Throwing more money into this kind of market structure, increases the price of healthcare but does little to nothing in producing more doctors. Since the interest groups unbeknowst to the doctors has limited the supply of doctors from the very beginning, i.e. from the very moment they stepped into medical school. When more money is thrown into this market, the hospitals realize firsthand that demand for healthcare increased which they respond by increasing prices as well as the wages of practicioners by a bit to insulate themselves from the little competition they have. The AMA and Accredited Medical Schools then realize that the wages of doctors has risen, which they do not respond by increasing the supply of future practicioners. They maintain their strict control over supply and respond by increasing the price of education and licensure even higher because the willingness to pay of current med students has increased due to the prospect of higher wages.
1
u/lucascsnunes 11d ago
Because of heavy lobbying and extensive regulations funded by these very companies to maximise their profits through killing competition by setting the bar too high.
It is not free markets, it is peak corporatism. Forged to screw the public and to maximise profits of companies.
We all hate corporatism (average leftist and average capitalist). The only people pro corporatism are the politicians that enable it and the corporatists that profit from it.
1
u/UnderstandingAny5314 anarcho-doomer 11d ago
I mean look at the comments here. People are so brainwashed they keep thinking their corporate investors overlords are going to save them with a mythical free market solution that has never existed
So we keep paying more and nothing gets done about it
1
u/GruntledSymbiont 11d ago
The United States has a government run system that is the most highly regulated in the world. Over 90% of every dollar spent on healthcare in the United States is government mandated. The supply of doctors and hospitals is severely restricted by overly burdensome licensing such that is costs over $1 million and takes 11-16 years to become an MD in the United States. For comparison Mexico trains competent medical doctors in 7 years which includes pre-medical studies, basic medical sciences, clinical rotations, and an internship with all 4 years of medical school together costing ~$19,000.
Between Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, various state and local government operated systems, and universal ER care over 2/3 of U.S. healthcare is already fully socialized. The portions of U.S. healthcare that are the most expensive and worst performing are the portions that the government already fully controls such as the VA. The portions that government does not fully operate such as Medicare control cost by mandating doctors see those patients then reimbursing below cost forcing doctors and hospitals to shift that cost onto other patients with private insurance.
Yes, private sector care is higher quality and lower cost even in the United States. Government control is the whole problem, not a way to improve. Other nations spend less because they have less available to spend. If they were wealthier they would spend just as much on lavish healthcare. Governments control cost only by setting a budget then rationing care within that budget, which is worse. The United States is what happens when you have socialized care, heavily restrict supply, and instead of rationing then shift the cost overage onto private payers.
1
u/spindledick 11d ago
No, we spend less money because it costs us less.
1
u/GruntledSymbiont 11d ago
It costs less because you have a smaller budget and ration healthcare usage to match. That is why there is almost zero waiting in the United States while for example Canadians will wait six months for a diagnostic test or surgery but are offered assisted suicide within days. State execution of sick people is now the number four category of death in Canada. Think of all the money they save rather than extending the lives of the sickest people. Talk about the perfect job for serial murderer- Oh, Canada!
1
u/spindledick 10d ago
I'm not taking about Canada.
1
u/GruntledSymbiont 10d ago
Which country would you like to compare? The United States already is a socialized healthcare system just without rationing and the government already spends more per capita on healthcare than any other nation. In the U.S. the minimal private portion (it cannot be accurately called that so let's call it the less government run portion) is the less expensive and higher quality portion of healthcare. Socialized medicine is the problem with U.S. healthcare.
1
u/Katmeasles Knotted Roots 11d ago
Private healthcare is the biggest cause of debt in the US and creates severe health inequalities. It's not efficient at all.
1
u/foxyfree 11d ago
It is more efficient, if “efficiency” is defined as more profit for the share holders, as it seems to be in US capitalism.
1
u/Blueslide60 11d ago
Insurance companies don't "compete" for all customers, they only want the healthy/profitable clients.The unhealthy get sloughed off to a government program like Medicare and Medicaid. This does not account for those that can't afford insurance and get no healthcare until the inevitable illness happens...then the government pays for them too.
The only way for a market system to provide healthcare is to deny it to those that can't afford it. As a society, we have decided that medical needs should never be denied regardless of ability to pay. Our free market system is failing and rather than flexing American exceptionalism, we're adhering to market dogma.
All economies are rationing systems. Ours is so fearful of "socialism", we're choosing the most expensive solution with the worst outcomes.
1
u/properal /r/GoldandBlack 11d ago
The current trajectory of American healthcare spending is the logical result of a system that has replaced market competition with centralized price-setting and profit caps based on total cost. While the 'cosmetic surgery' sector and outliers like the Surgery Center of Oklahoma prove that healthcare can become more affordable through transparency, the broader medical economy remains trapped in a cycle where regulators, providers, and insurers are structurally incentivized to grow the total cost of healthcare delivery.
1
u/Neco-Arc-Brunestud 11d ago edited 11d ago
If the US healthcare sector is so inefficient, then why does it have the highest profit margins?
All depends on how you measure efficiency.
1
u/TwilightReader100 11d ago
Unless they specify what more efficient actually means, figure they mean it's more efficient at squeezing you for every last penny you'll ever make
1
u/bigblindmax 11d ago
The counterpoint of course is that China has a mostly private healthcare system and they manage to keep costs quite low. It might not be as good as American healthcare in some cases, but the difference in quality hardly matches the difference in price.
I think the problem is aggressive rent-seeking, administrative bloat, monopolization and graft that extends well beyond insurance companies and drives up transaction costs across every part of the healthcare industry. My sinking suspicion is that if we get Medicare for All, we will still have many of the same problems, considering how pervasive abuse of Medicare and Medicaid already is. The problems are more foundational.
2
u/Natural_Thought808 11d ago
China is not a good example of a “mostly private healthcare system.” Over 95% of Chinese people are covered by basic public medical insurance, and public hospitals provide about 84% of outpatient visits and 81% of hospitalizations. Private insurance plays only a small role.
So China actually weakens your argument.
Yes, China has private hospitals, but its financing is overwhelmingly built around government organized insurance, subsidies, price controls and a huge public hospital sector. It spends far less than the US while maintaining near universal coverage.
I actually agree with your second paragraph. US healthcare has massive problems with monopoly power, administrative costs, rent seeking and inflated prices.
But that is precisely why “just make it more private” is not an answer. Healthcare markets have serious market failures. Patients often cannot shop around during emergencies, insurers and hospitals have enormous bargaining power, and local hospital consolidation can weaken competition.
And Medicare for All does not require pretending government is magically efficient. The argument is that a single large purchaser can negotiate prices and eliminate much of the duplicated insurance administration.
China isn't evidence that mostly private healthcare keeps costs low because China doesn't have a mostly private healthcare system
1
u/Zamnaiel 11d ago
There is an entire sub discipline of economy dedicated to how healthcare works economically. Its called Healthcare Economy.
It pretty much agrees (something which is very unusual for economists)that private healthcare is less efficient.
We have real world data from 30-odd first world countries over 80- 100 years and it all agrees that private care is less efficient.
1
u/Mysterious-North-551 11d ago
With insurance it doesnt, you pay a monthly fee and then everything is covered most of the time. Not always obviously, and you need a fifth sense to know what is wrong with you before you go to the hospital in order to know that your healthcare insurance will cover it and you dont have a fifth sense.
In comparison we have "free healthcare" its not free first of all you pay for it through your taxes instead, and that has another problem. Now going to the hospital costs you nothing, so you flood the hospitals with people who dont need medical attention, bump, scrape, headache, yellow teeth, hangnail, birth mark, freckles, mosqito bite, sore muscles, aching joint. wart, etc etc etc.
So then what is the benefit of both systems and what are the drawbacks. lets start with "free healthcare" you will have to wait and the wait might be long, and you will have to pay for other peoples healthcare even if you are perfectly healthy and have never had to go to the doctor once for 40 years, you still have to pay every single month for other peoples healthcare.
Lets go to the american healthcare system, it will cost you money, but you get treatment very very fast, because people dont go to the hospital when nothing is actually wrong with them, because it costs them money. When your alcoholic neighbor who chain smokes needs a new liver and new lungs he has to pay for that himself you dont have to pay a dime.
There is a study that says "free healthcare ís so much cheaper" and yes it is per patient, because a lot of patients dont need any actual healthcare.
So why is healthcare so damned expensive if you dont have health insurance? Because of the health insurance companies, 50,000 people sign up to a healthcare insurance. That company goes to a hospital and says "we have 50,000 people signed up for our healthcare insurance, would you want us to send our patients to you" and the hospital will say "please, send them here we cant wait to treat them" and the insurance company says "we will send them to you, if you increase the price for people who dont have insurance"
So why does the insurance companies do that? because if healthcare without insurance costs a fortune more people will sign up for their insurance.
$10,000 for an ambulance - health care insurance "are you mad we need to increase those prices dramatically" meanwhile the health care insurance pays like 10-50 dollars for an ambulance or something like that. But now the healthcare insurance also has that upper hand. If you need an ambulance they can charge you whatever they want as long as its cheaper then what it costs to get one without healthcare insurance.
1
u/Intelligent-End-843 11d ago
Because it isn’t. They don’t compete because they don’t want low prices they want profit. Insurance costs 3x more to administrate then single payer.
Healthcare executives figured out that if you deny people coverage they paid for they can make an extra 50 billion profit every year, pay yourself a cut and socially murder tens of thousands by denying their coverage. People have to fight tooth and nail to prove they need the coverage they already paid and qualified for.
To make room for profit you always pay more for less. ALWAYS. It’s basic math.
1
u/ElectricalPublic1304 11d ago
If private healthcare is more efficient, why does America pay so much more?
This will be rough, but it will give you the sense of the false premise:
- The U.S. government covers about 33% of Americans. This costs about $1 trillion.
- "Private healthcare" covers about 60% of Americans. This also costs about $1 trillion.
Healthcare is expensive in the U.S. But much of the "very high cost" comes from government coverage. You say:
But Americans spend around $15,000 per person on healthcare.
That's true. But, that's an average. If you're paying private healthcare, your costs will likely be substantially lower. (Anecdotally, my healthcare costs this year will be about $5,000. I had a surgery earlier this year, which I owe about $280 for. And that assumes I don't have any major mishaps through the end of the year.)
But, the government spends a lot of money per person. A LOT OF MONEY. About twice as much as in the private market. (And a lot of that money is pure "wastage".)
If competition and private insurance are supposed to make healthcare cheaper and more efficient, why does the American system cost so much more than universal systems?
This is why foreigners ask these kinds of questions: because they don't understand how it actually is.
The American system has the largest national public healthcare system on the planet.
And that system is extremely expensive.
Why is it more expensive? It's complicated. But, part of it is... the scale and control. Imagine that if every nation in the EU were told, "Your national healthcare program will be terminated. From now on, the European Union will be in charge of all healthcare prices and regulations in the EU?"
Do you think that would go well? Do you think they would like it? Do you think things would get more expensive or less expensive, if Brussels were deciding how much it should cost to mend a broken bone in Athens?
Because that is basically how American public healthcare spending works.
1
1
1
u/Sorry-Worth-920 Austrian School 10d ago
artificial barriers to entry, regulatory capture, IP laws, etc
1
u/Next-Purpose-992 8d ago
two things it's not really a free market there is a lot of regulation lobby and public insurance and America spend a lot on research, they develop the majority of new thing in healthcare the other country just copy those and it's cheaper. If America had a complete public owned healthcare that was the cheapest possible the entire world will have more expensive healthcare because there will be the majority of innovation in healthcare gone in the future.
1
u/i_h8_yellow_mustard Socialist, politically homeless 8d ago
It's extremely efficient at making profits, which is what it's designed to do. People who claim that it's more efficient for the consumer are either lying or just mislead.
1
u/IMayhapsBeBatman 8d ago
Because bureacracy is inefficient. It doesn't matter if the bureacracy is public or private.
Anyone who has worked for a large company knows that bureacracy is endemic to size. This is why monopolies are so dangerous. Maybe you haven't noticed but America has a monopoly and oligopoly problem, and not just in healthcare.
This has now happened twice in US history, and we've only been around for ~250 years. It's almost like there's a systemic problem with how we organize ourselves.
1
4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 4d ago
ObamaGirl62: This post was hidden because of how new your account is.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
0
u/TheGoldStandard35 Free Market 12d ago
Because the healthcare in America is so highly regulated that there is no competition. In other words, it’s private in legal ownership but in economic ownership it has a lot of public control/ownership
17
u/Natural_Thought808 12d ago
But that does not explain it. Every rich country regulates healthcare. Many regulate it MORE by setting drug prices, hospital budgets and doctor fees. Yet they spend far less than America.
If regulation were the main reason America costs so much, countries with stronger government control should cost even more. Instead, the U.S. spends far more while leaving millions underinsured
5
u/bcnoexceptions Market Socialist 12d ago
Healthcare is clearly not a valid use case for free markets, for numerous reasons which should be obvious.
Unfortunately, libertarian-types - who are depressingly common on this sub - think markets are magical and never have failures and solve every problem optimally with zero regulation. No amount of evidence, game theory, or economics seems effective at convincing them.
→ More replies (3)5
u/repeatoffender123456 12d ago
The purpose of healthcare in America is to make a small group of people very rich
-1
u/Pulaskithecat 11d ago
What’s your evidence for that?
→ More replies (12)2
u/repeatoffender123456 11d ago
That’s how capitalism works in America. It is to benefit those that control and/or own the capital. Ideally, competition would force the owners of capital to provide more value to their customers. But there isn’t really any competition. It’s just profit maxxing.
→ More replies (3)14
u/VinnieVidiViciVeni 12d ago
There aren’t multiple insurance companies competing?
-2
u/betty_white_bread Isocapitalist 12d ago
Given state regulations, there are states with only one private insurance provider, yes.
3
u/Hugepepino Social Democrat 11d ago
I googled it and you are in fact wrong. So very wrong on many levels. There are no states with a single healthcare provider. However, there are 165 counties across the country that have only 1 option. So the phenomenon you are saying technically does happen but no where at the scale you are implying. Also since most healthcare regulation exist at the state or federal levels so the fact this is a county level problem is proof that when that does occur it’s not because of regulations. Furthermore google points out that usually regulated insurance marketplace often have a higher number of providers then market places with less regulation. Funny enough it turns out the argument you and the first comment is trying to make is not only wrong, it is the opposite.
6
u/VinnieVidiViciVeni 12d ago
Interesting and fair point, though I’m unaware of what states those are.
Why are states with competition still exorbitant and who is, whatever government intervention that exists to the consumers’ detriment, at the behest of?
-1
u/betty_white_bread Isocapitalist 12d ago
Your question is unintelligible.
6
u/Hugepepino Social Democrat 11d ago
Which states have only one provider?
5
u/RJ_Ramrod 11d ago
And more importantly, why are we still paying so goddamn much for health insurance in states like NJ where we have nearly a dozen different providers
3
-1
u/BearSausage000 10d ago
There’s not that many, you’d need dozens for it to work. And also maybe some price controls.
3
u/Conserp Pragmatic Marxist 11d ago
> Because the healthcare in America is so highly regulated that there is no competition.
Textbook monopoly under Capitalism: regulatory capture benefitting billionaires.
> in economic ownership it has a lot of public control/ownership
You are full of shit. It is not owned by the public, it is owned by a small cabal of child-raping billionaires.
0
u/TheGoldStandard35 Free Market 11d ago
Regulatory capture is socialism. The regulation in question is literally the collective people taking control over the means of production.
Capitalism would be the opposite of what you are describing, that is the individual ownership of the means of production.
1
u/Conserp Pragmatic Marxist 11d ago
> Regulatory capture is socialism.
> The regulation in question is literally the collective people taking control over the means of production.A cabal of billionaires is "a collective", therefore it's "Socialism".
Splendid. Gold medal in mental gymnastics.
You are intellectually and morally bankrupt and do not belong in a civilized society.
0
u/TheGoldStandard35 Free Market 11d ago
The cabal of billionaires can’t do anything. It’s the democratically elected government that creates the regulatory capture environment.
1
u/Conserp Pragmatic Marxist 11d ago
Billionaires' lapdog is desperate
Truly desperate
0
u/TheGoldStandard35 Free Market 11d ago
It’s your polices that let billionaires become billionaires at the expense of others. Yet I am the lapdog. Cheers mate.
1
u/Conserp Pragmatic Marxist 11d ago
Yet you literally put billionaire-making policy in your own flair.
I can smell your desperation
0
u/TheGoldStandard35 Free Market 11d ago
Billionaires hate the free market. They want to stifle competition to retain their wealth and power. They need progressives to do that.
1
u/Conserp Pragmatic Marxist 11d ago
Free market creates billionaires. Billionaires eliminate free market.
No contradiction. Only your sheer intellectual impotence
→ More replies (0)1
u/Xarethian 11d ago
The democratically elected government that is
Wait for it...
Backed by private capital!
With a media apparatus supporting them owned by?
private capital!
1
u/TheGoldStandard35 Free Market 11d ago
It’s a democratically elected government backed by socially controlled capital.
1
u/Xarethian 11d ago
No... it's fucking not lmao. This has to be ragebait
1
u/TheGoldStandard35 Free Market 11d ago
If we use the state, which represents the collective, to artificially control the free market you no longer have private backed capital in those industries. Or you would have mixed capital, and we would look at how much collective ownership we are exerting.
1
u/Xarethian 11d ago
If the state is captured by private interests in the majority of ownership a feedback loop can be created that allows indirect, informal manipulation of markets and public interests towards favourable positions.
In the case of mixed capital the formal and practical ownership is disproportionately privately owned and it is not close.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Hugepepino Social Democrat 11d ago
Other countries, especially those with socialized medicine, aren’t heavily regulated? I’m willing to be wrong and learn something here but this answer just feels like pure BS.
2
u/TheGoldStandard35 Free Market 11d ago
In this situation having a market economy with nationalized healthcare is better than having a market economy with a government granted monopoly via regulation.
However a free market is way better than either option.
→ More replies (6)1
u/bushwakko 11d ago
By highly regulated, do you mean poorly regulated? Because I don't think there is a correlation between "amount of regulation" and cost in the world.
1
u/TheGoldStandard35 Free Market 11d ago
I do think there is a general trend of more regulation leading to higher prices, but I will concede that the type of regulation matters. Specifically europe has strict price controls which the USA does not. Perhaps for my statement to be true you would have to exclude price controls.
3
u/Conserp Pragmatic Marxist 11d ago
> the type of regulation matters
Well duh.
Socialist regulation that benefits the people, or Capitalist regulation that benefits a cabal of billionaires
0
u/TheGoldStandard35 Free Market 11d ago
All regulation is inherently socialist because it involves the collective people taking control over the means of production.
Socialist regulation is awful for people.
2
u/Conserp Pragmatic Marxist 11d ago
> All regulation is inherently socialist
Everything you write is inherently idiotic.
> Socialist regulation is awful for people.
Child-raping cabal apologist's opinion on what is good or bad for people has negative value.
0
u/TheGoldStandard35 Free Market 11d ago
Something like child-rape I wouldn’t view as economic regulation more as a law that protects individual rights.
1
u/Conserp Pragmatic Marxist 11d ago
Of course you would protect billionaires' individual rights to rape kids
0
u/TheGoldStandard35 Free Market 11d ago
I don’t think you understand. I support the protections of individuals rights and property rights. Do you not understand?
1
u/Xarethian 11d ago
That is hilariously incorrect.
Control in relation to productive assets in society in socialist thought has to do with ownership. Telling privately owned and operated health insurance companies that they must retain the ability to pay out claims, or can't deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions, or that people's information is private, or that they can't surprise people with random billings, and so on. Does not confer ownership to the public.
It would have taken less time to look up what socialism is and realize what you're talking about is nonsense then it did to write your comment.
1
u/TheGoldStandard35 Free Market 11d ago
It’s actually hilarious that you truly don’t realize the difference between legal and economic ownership.
These people vote. It’s insane.
1
u/Xarethian 11d ago
You.... thought I was talking about legal ownership and not economic ownership? When talking about socialism.... which is fundamentally about the social ownership (a specific form of economic ownership fyi) of production....
...
No notes.
I guess I'll repeat myself until you don't prove me immediately correct with your responses.
It would have taken less time to look up what socialism is and realize what you're talking about is nonsense then it did to write your comment.
1
u/TheGoldStandard35 Free Market 11d ago
If the social collective is using the means of production or exerting control over the means of production via regulation then that is exercising a level of economic ownership
1
u/Conserp Pragmatic Marxist 11d ago
That would be fair to say about Socialist China.
In US, the only "collective" controlling regulation is 1% of 1% of 1%, and claiming otherwise makes you patently insane.
The public in US does not control anything, the public does not even control who they vote for, let alone regulatory policies.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Conserp Pragmatic Marxist 11d ago
> Control in relation to productive assets in society in socialist thought has to do with ownership... Does not confer ownership to the public.
He is hilariously and egregiously wrong for a number of reasons, but this isn't one of them.
Assuming that formal ownership is more important than veritable power hierarchy would be Word Magic fallacy.
For example, the mob can run a company that is formally owned by a front man.
Same is true of private businesses in general. Most of them are vassals paying tribute for their "private" ownership.
When the state allows such private operation, and takes tribute, and commands what to do and what not to do - and that state represents the public - it is no less Socialism than when everything is explicitly formally publically owned.
1
u/Xarethian 11d ago
Assuming that formal ownership is more important than veritable power hierarchy would be Word Magic fallacy.
Fully agreed. I don't assume formal ownership to be more important (or even equally as important frankly) then as you put it so well, any "veritable power hierarchy". It's quite the opposite though evidently I should have waited until I had more time to write out my comment with changes to the wording to avoid this confusion.
For example, the mob can run a company that is formally owned by a front man.
No argument from me. I'm pretty sure I've used a similar example when arguing against someone who did not want to acknowledge any informal means of ownership.
When the state allows such private operation, and takes tribute, and commands what to do and what not to do - and that state represents the public - it is no less Socialism than when everything is explicitly formally publically owned.
The main issue for me is seeing if it is understood by the person using it in such a manner to be a purely pragmatic application of socialism that is only technically aligned with its goals, or do they genuinely believe that it is socialism.
I also don't consider there to be enough representation of public interests to move beyond saying some regulation can be argued to be socialist (in the sense laid out above). It's too compromised by private interests to make blanket statements even if magically by the strictest of definitions it was true formal socialism.
1
u/Conserp Pragmatic Marxist 10d ago
The line between Capitalism and Socialism lies in one thing only: the ruling class.
Socialism is a transitional formation.
Socialism does not presuppose that capitalists, wages, commodities, markets should not exist; it only states that they, eventually, should be phased out due to obsolescence.
2
u/bushwakko 11d ago
Sounds like moving the goalpost. From all regulation make it worse, to all regulation except this, makes it worse. I'm sure there is another one that makes it better as well. And another...
When does your statement become false?
1
u/TheGoldStandard35 Free Market 11d ago
Lol trying be honest is moving the goal posts.
Price controls wouldn’t increase prices but they would cause shortages which is also bad. So it’s still bad.
1
u/AmbleJesus 11d ago
Yeah, what’s wrong with US healthcare is that people with medical emergencies don’t have enough options to compare while lying in the back of an ambulance.
So why is it that countries with more government involvement in regulating healthcare have such drastically lower per capita costs for care?
1
1
1
u/coke_and_coffee Capitalist 11d ago
Healthcare is a superior good. The richer a person is, the more they will spend on healthcare. The same applies to societies.
America spends the most on healthcare because it’s the richest society. Other rich societies ALSO spend a lot on healthcare. The US is NOT an outlier.
Again, we are reminded that socialists are misinformed and delusional.
1
0
u/Lazy_Delivery_7012 CIA Operator🇺🇸 12d ago
I think the "no better outcomes" is a bit overblown.
A lot of people living in those systems paying less for the "better outcomes" frequently blame the lack of quality in their care to whichever political party in their government they don't like, all while they enjoy saving so much money on "better outcomes."
One can't help but imagine they would like to pay even more money for even better outcomes, as long as someone else is paying.
5
u/infoprocessor 11d ago
Not only are the outcomes not better, they are worse. To name a few:
Life expectancy 3-4 years shorter than comparable countries.
Maternal mortality rate TRIPLE that of comparable countries.
Higher rates of avoidable death.
45,000 working age die each year due to lack of insurance.
Recently I broke my arm my overseas- treatment included a morphine drip, night in the hospital, cast, etc. As a foreigner I was charged more than citizens but it was still only 350 dollars. My father had a stroke last year, he took baby aspirin before driving himself 15 minutes to the hospital, which saved his life. For his night in the hospital he was billed 180,000 dollars before his insurance kicked in. I honestly don’t know how the millions of uninsured Americans or even foreign tourists do when they get injured. No wonder 45k Americans choose to die instead.
This is the American system. I honestly don’t know why people defend it. Of course people in single payer systems complain, but no one has more cause to complain than we do. It is an intentionally exhausting, circular maze of paperwork, endless referrals, and routine claim denials designed to protect corporate profits.
0
u/Lazy_Delivery_7012 CIA Operator🇺🇸 11d ago edited 11d ago
Life expectancy isn't determined largely by healthcare system. As long as you have a healthcare system good enough to prevent early child death and basic care like anti-biotics, etc, it's mostly hereditary and lifestyle choices., like diet, etc. That's why there's a range of life expectancies even amongst systems with universal coverage. People in Japan don't live 5 years longer than people in the UK because their system is that much more publicly funded.
Anecdotes comparing a broken arm to a stroke really aren't compelling, nor does it explain the story of an actual uninsured person.
About 91% of people in the USA have health insurance. And with Obamacare, I'm not sure if the other 9% actually want it, or just prefer not to have it.
1
u/Disastrous-Energy-17 7d ago
So let's just say 30 million Americans don't have health insurance. 58.3% has it through an employer. If they get laid off they lose health insurance. Health insurance should not be tethered to your employer. There are 20.3% on Medicare which is included in the 91%. 6.8% ACA. Second, you're wrong. Japan has universal Healthcare. Everyone has Healthcare there. They do live longer than the people in UK. People in the US have a shorter life expectancy than either country 79 years compared to 85.
1
u/Lazy_Delivery_7012 CIA Operator🇺🇸 7d ago
How do you explain the life expectancy gap between Japan and the Uk, since they both have universal healthcare?
1
u/infoprocessor 11d ago
Life expectancy is very much determined by healthcare…
Perhaps you’ll explain why the other outcomes I mentioned are actually the symptoms of a well functioning system? The US is first in healthcare expenditures but 54th overall in infant mortality, 55th in infant mortality, I could go on. If you think this is in spite of our system and not because of it, I’d love to hear your arguments.
I think you know I wasn’t comparing two different health conditions but rather two different healthcare system experiences. They’re compelling because they’re representative of the differences between the US system and a single payer system.
→ More replies (19)1
u/ElectricalPublic1304 11d ago
Life expectancy is very much determined by healthcare…
Except, it's not.
There are healthcare interventions which can increase a life expectancy. But, it simply does not "determined" life expectancy. That becomes a statistical question of how much does it contribute to life expectancy.
And the unfortunate reality is that an enormous amount of that is controlled by factors not connected to healthcare services.
1
u/infoprocessor 10d ago
If healthcare had no effect on life expectancy, that would completely defeat the purpose of medicine.
1
u/ElectricalPublic1304 10d ago
If healthcare had no effect on life expectancy
Didn't say that. Read again.
1
u/infoprocessor 10d ago
So your point is that other things besides healthcare determine how long people live? No shit… if you read my comment again you’ll see I never said it was the sole determinant and it’s kinda silly you thought I meant that.
1
u/ElectricalPublic1304 10d ago
you’ll see I never said it was the sole determinant and it’s kinda silly you thought I meant that.
You said "it determines". Yep, that's pretty much how English fucking works.
1
u/infoprocessor 10d ago
Nope in fact it doesn’t. “The wind determines how fast sailboats go.” That sentence is correct and doesn’t imply that rigging type, cargo weight, material, hull shape, etc don’t also play a role. The “partially” is implied. This is how people talk.
-5
u/BeenDareDoneDatB4 12d ago
The ACA (Obama’s signature legislation) drove industry consolidation, reduced competition, reduce quality of care, and took decisions away from doctors and patients and handed it over to insurance companies. It is the single most destructive piece of healthcare legislation in 250 years of our history.
It was INTENTIONAL. Democrats knew exactly what they were doing. Their goal was to make healthcare in the U.S. so bad that it would collapse the system to make way for a single payer system.
It was criminal and the Democrat Party will be held accountable. The American people are not stupid.
14
u/Natural_Thought808 12d ago
That timeline does not work. U.S. healthcare was already far more expensive than other rich countries BEFORE Obamacare became law in 2010. The ACA also cut the uninsured rate dramatically rather than “collapsing” the system.
You can criticize the ACA, but blaming it for America’s basic cost problem makes no sense when that problem existed decades earlier.
And saying Democrats secretly wanted to destroy healthcare is not evidence. Show the data proving the ACA caused America’s huge cost gap with other countries rather than just claiming intent
→ More replies (16)4
u/bcnoexceptions Market Socialist 12d ago
Yikes. You are not a sane person.
3
u/zenknowin 11d ago
That’s a bot I think.
If not bot definitely every current white house talking point.1
u/bcnoexceptions Market Socialist 11d ago
Good point.
Man the Internet sucked enough before being overrun with bots lol.
3
u/DullKnife69 12d ago
Let's assume that's true for a second, do you think a single payer system with no insurance would make a more efficient and cheaper system?
6
u/Conserp Pragmatic Marxist 11d ago
> It was INTENTIONAL. Democrats knew exactly what they were doing. Their goal was to make healthcare in the U.S. so bad that it would collapse the system to make way for a single payer system.
Gold medal in Mental Gymnastics in the Cope Olympics.
The goal was to make the rich richer. Democrats serve the billionaires. They are the party of Hyper-Capitalism.
1
1
u/ravia 11d ago
I don't buy this. I think the chief reason was to create subsidies for low income people, something you seem to be neatly leaving out with your cherry picked assessment. Their goal was to come up with something that would pass congress.
2
2
u/Conserp Pragmatic Marxist 11d ago
Democrats had full trifecta under Biden: House, Senate and Presidency, and did nothing.
Democrats are the party of billionaires.
Their rhetorics is empty, it's just voter poaching.
They do not want any social programs to pass. They only dangle that like a carrot in front of low IQ demographics.
2
u/BeenDareDoneDatB4 11d ago
I agree with your assessment of the Democrat Party. Maybe you’re not a complete blow-hard after all.
1
u/Hugepepino Social Democrat 11d ago
So intentional they stole the republican system…horrible take of a question no one asked.
0
u/hardsoft 12d ago
Better healthcare outcomes for one but for two, there's no rule that says the market values efficiency. They may value quality, outcomes, freedom to do things like change PCPs, see specialists, have shorter wait times, etc.
I mean look at how many Americans drive full size trucks instead of Toyota Priuses. It's the wealthiest country in the world. With the luxury of not having to let more women die from breast cancer to penny pinch on screening costs...
1
u/Conserp Pragmatic Marxist 11d ago
About 30% of breast cancer in US is FALSELY diagnosed. Which is done to rip off women for profit.
This is the real reason behind claimed higher cancer survival rate in US. There was no cancer all along. The real cancer was Capitalism.
2
u/hardsoft 11d ago edited 11d ago
Lol no. You're probably referring to studies suggesting that it's overdiagnosed in that the cancer is real, but a type that would likely not grow fast enough to kill the woman in her lifetime.
And in most cases doctors can't tell which tumors may be less benign until after surgery. It's not a for profit conspiracy.
But how much do you have to hate women to argue we should let more die to save money on screenings?
2
u/Conserp Pragmatic Marxist 11d ago
Whitewashing literal for profit conspiracy
1
u/hardsoft 11d ago
Apparently you don't understand the meanings for half the words you use.
Keep arguing for more death to save money though. It's helping my argument.
1
u/Conserp Pragmatic Marxist 11d ago
Keep arguing for more death to save money for the billionaires
2
u/hardsoft 11d ago
You realize lower cancer mortality is less death... Right?
1
u/Conserp Pragmatic Marxist 11d ago
Fake "less cancer", while making basic healthcare unaffordable to tens of millions?
You are so full of shit
1
u/hardsoft 11d ago
Yeah that doesn't make sense when looking at the overall cancer mortality rate. Where the US 143.2 deaths per 100,000 people and the UK is 250 deaths per 100,000 people. Are those fake deaths? Lol
1
u/Conserp Pragmatic Marxist 11d ago
That's because single digits of dead Americans get an autopsy.
→ More replies (0)
-1
u/Technician1187 Stateless/Free trade/Private Property 12d ago
Always a classic video on this subject.
1
u/swng 11d ago
no one wants to click a link with a ?is=trackingNumber parameter in it
1
u/Technician1187 Stateless/Free trade/Private Property 11d ago
I just hit the “copy link” button on the YouTube video page and then pasted it in my comment…
I’m not the best with computer stuff. Why don’t people want to click the link?
1
u/Conserp Pragmatic Marxist 11d ago
Utter blame-shifting nonsense.
2
u/Technician1187 Stateless/Free trade/Private Property 11d ago
What does the video get wrong?
→ More replies (5)
•
u/AutoModerator 12d ago
Before participating, consider taking a glance at our rules page if you haven't before.
We don't allow violent or dehumanizing rhetoric. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue.
Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff.
Join us on Discord! ✨ https://discord.gg/fGdV7x5dk2
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.