Single payer versus the US corporate controlled healthcare industry

[guillaumeb]

By every measure, mortality, outcomes, cost, and its effect on society, the US system of monetizing the health of US residents and prioritizing profit over people is the reason that the US system is ranked 37th.

But as bad as the US system is, the beneficiaries of that system, the huge corporations that control it, are doing very well indeed.
The average US life expectancy might be dropping, but corporate profits are rising.

Unforeseen medical expenses are the cause of most personal bankruptcies, but corporate profits are rising. And of these bankruptcies, most of the filers actually have insurance.

Millions of Americans are still uninsured, but corporate profits are rising.

Millions of Americans have no access to medical care, no access to dental and vision care, but corporate profits are rising.

Millions of Americans think that they have actual health insurance, but when they attempt to use it, they discover its severe limitations. But corporate profits are rising.

The ACA, for all of the good intentions of its creators, is nothing more than a Government subsidy of already profitable corporations.
The ACA has not stopped people from filing for bankruptcy due to medical costs.

In comparison, every industrialized country with a single payer plan beats the US system.

On average, other wealthy countries spend about half as much per person on health than the U.S. spends

Comparing health spending in the U.S. to other countries is complicated, as each country has unique political, economic, and social attributes that contribute to its spending. Because health spending is closely associated with a country’s wealth, the remaining charts compare the U.S. to similar OECD countries – those that have above median national incomes (as measured by GDP) and also have above median income per person. The average amount spent on health per person in comparable countries ($5,280) is roughly half that of the U.S. ($10,224).

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-spending-u-s-compare-countries/#item-average-wealthy-countries-spend-half-much-per-person-health-u-s-spends

When they speak of “unique political, economic, and social attributes”, we must remember that in the US, the rich dominate and determine what is acceptable political thought.

And part of the current debate revolves around an insurance company narrative that claims Medicare for All would be unaffordable. The insurance companies are spending billions to frighten Americans by lying about how much a single payer system would cost. And that lie is exposed by simply researching how much each country spends on healthcare per person.

And part of that insurance company narrative is that Americans like their current plan. But as millions find out when they have serious health issues, their plan is simply not as good as they think it is.

[mr_lebowski]

1. Yup. This. (nt)

[H2O Man]

2. Recommended.

Thank you for this. It would seem rather clear that if we took insurance companies out of health care, we would save a lot of money.

[guillaumeb]

3. I agree, but that would severly impact the "health outcomes" of the insurance industry.

And associated industries that profit from the current system.

In my view, the most bizarre thing is that millions of seniors are already familiar with Medicare. But somehow, according to the right wing, Medicare for All would be a disaster.

[pecosbob]

4. So much wrong...

If they wanted to bring back manufacturing jobs to this country, removing the handicap of paying for employee healthcare from the employer would be a good start. It would make American products a lot more competitive on the world market. If for-profit healthcare disappeared tomorrow we would be competitive with China.

[guillaumeb]

5. And that economic aspect is very true.

But beyond that, is the social and psychological costs associated with the US system. So much needless suffering, and all to insure that the rich continue to profit from a system ranked 37th.

[pecosbob]

6. That's what I meant to infer with the title, if I failed to elucidate...

It's just immoral and stupid on so many levels.

[guillaumeb]

7. I did infer that, and I am certain most would.

But the right is very successful in determining the terms of what is considered acceptable debate.

[ritapria]

8. Single Payer is the Conservative Means to a Progressive End

Single Payer wipes out the bureaucracy , inefficiency and profiteering that is endemic in the present system …..It is good for business and everyone gets covered ….Per Capita spending on healthcare drops 50% ….It is not for free ….We must do away with the nonsense that taxes on the middle class will not go up ...They will ...But most people will save more on healthcare than the amount subtracted from them in terms of higher taxes …...And no one will be forced into bankruptcy for the " crime" of suffering from a serious illness ………… All of the major countries in the world have figured this out …………

[guillaumeb]

9. Agreed. and key is this ignored fact:

We must do away with the nonsense that taxes on the middle class will not go up ...They will ...But most people will save more on healthcare than the amount subtracted from them in terms of higher taxes …...And no one will be forced into bankruptcy

The right prefers to confuse people by claiming, against all evidence, that single payer is more expensive.