The health care industry is bound to collapse soon, experts say

[Ignatius J]

Sure, I agree in theory.

I'm willing to carry insurance at the current price point mainly because there is a small risk of almost infinite costs, too much for even a wealthy person to bear (what if your kid needs a stem cell transplant etc - you going to pay 2 mill for the treatment and ongoing care?). If I could guarantee costs of < 100 or even 150k a year I'd consider going without insurance.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

Of course I will pay it. No question. I will work out the payment plan with the hospital if I do not have insurance yet. I'll amortize the payment to what I can afford over an extended time.

By the way, there are cost-sharing plans that help out an infinite amount that are still much cheaper than private insurance.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deleted682700]

$30,000 a year? Estimated costs on Rheumatoid Arthritis are $2000-$10000/year. Taking the high number, I would be spending $1700/year for cost-sharing plan (essentially catastrophic coverage) plus $10,000 for RA= $11,700/year

I was paying $1610/month for a BCBS HDHP. Taking into the $5000 deductible, I would be paying about $24,000/year. (Last year between premiums, deductibles, and coninsurance I paid $28K. Makes that $30K a year a little more in perspective).

So even with a chronic disease, I will save money.

I saw insurance as a casino blackjack game 4 years ago. You know odds are not in your favor but you could come out on top in a healthcare situation if you needed it. $1610/month for a HDHP was not enough of a "potential win" situation for me to sit down at the blackjack table.

One last mention is that remember that pre-existing conditions aren't discriminated against if I wanted to pursue a plan.

Enbrel and the other biologics are expensive fad medicines. Pentoxyphylline and thalidomide do the same with much less side effects like inducing cancers and tuberculosis.
Full disclosure. I am anesthesiologist, not a rheumy

 

[doctalaughs]

Enbrel and the other biologics are expensive fad medicines. Pentoxyphylline and thalidomide do the same with much less side effects like inducing cancers and tuberculosis.
Full disclosure. I am anesthesiologist, not a rheumy

FYI- Enbrel has been around since 1998 so I wouldn't call it a fad. More a mainstream treatment.

Biologics work great (way better side effect profile and higher efficacy than the old drugs which are generally not the ones you mention- think MTX and sulfasalazine) but ARE ridiculously expensive.

No one really uses pentoxyphyline, at least not for RA or related conditions.

Thalidomide is occasionally used, usually not for RA, but s/e profile way worse than biologics.

I use all these drugs on a regular basis.

Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Ignatius J]

FYI- Enbrel has been around since 1998 so I wouldn't call it a fad. More a mainstream treatment.

Biologics work great (way better side effect profile and higher efficacy than the old drugs which are generally not the ones you mention- think MTX and sulfasalazine) but ARE ridiculously expensive.

No one really uses pentoxyphyline, at least not for RA or related conditions.

Thalidomide is occasionally used, usually not for RA, but s/e profile way worse than biologics.

I use all these drugs on a regular basis.

Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

The Affordable Care Acts works great for those with preexisting conditions and simply robs those without them. Not here to condemn those with preexisting conditions, but it is simply the truth.

 

[pgg]

The Affordable Care Acts works great for those with preexisting conditions and simply robs those without them. Not here to condemn those with preexisting conditions, but it is simply the truth.

That's ... hardly an indictment of an insurance program. That's how insurance is supposed to work. It's the very definition of insurance, with the addition of the agenda-driven emotionally-laden word "robs" ...

Pooling money from sick people and not-sick people to pay for the care of the sick people is how insurance works. Government programs like Medicare or ACA or NHS or others use taxes to pay the premiums either directly or indirectly, but they're still insurance.

Is your point simply that taxes (for anything) are robbery, because collection of the tax doesn't exactly match distribution of benefit?

 

[Ignatius J]

That's ... hardly an indictment of an insurance program. That's how insurance is supposed to work. It's the very definition of insurance, with the addition of the agenda-driven emotionally-laden word "robs" ...

Pooling money from sick people and not-sick people to pay for the care of the sick people is how insurance works. Government programs like Medicare or ACA or NHS or others use taxes to pay the premiums either directly or indirectly, but they're still insurance.

Is your point simply that taxes (for anything) are robbery, because collection of the tax doesn't exactly match distribution of benefit?

That is not necessarily how insurance is "supposed to work". That isn't how it works with most forms of insurance where risk is stratified and people pay according to that risk. In fact, medical insurance is actually unique in the regard that it indeed redistributes wealth exponentially and does an awful job at it. Young healthy folks with families subsidize older sick empty nesters who have had their lives to save.

Bottom line is healthcare isn't free and by definition cannot be a "right". We have to pay the providers. When people say it is a "right", they are essentially saying that they shouldn't be paying for it and other people should make up the difference.

Ask a young middle class family making $80,000/year and paying $20K per year in healthcare costs whether they are feeling that they are getting healthcare by their "rights".

 

[Man o War]

That is not necessarily how insurance is "supposed to work". That isn't how it works with most forms of insurance where risk is stratified and people pay according to that risk. In fact, medical insurance is actually unique in the regard that it indeed redistributes wealth exponentially and does an awful job at it. Young healthy folks with families subsidize older sick empty nesters who have had their lives to save.

Bottom line is healthcare isn't free and by definition cannot be a "right". We have to pay the providers. When people say it is a "right", they are essentially saying that they shouldn't be paying for it and other people should make up the difference.

Ask a young middle class family making $80,000/year and paying $20K per year in healthcare costs whether they are feeling that they are getting healthcare by their "rights".

Not to mention we do an awful job of rationing care in instances where it is fairly clear that what we are doing is pointless.
We spend millions knowing we will extend life for a matter of months.
I don't pretend to have the solution to this particular issue, but we have to figure out a way to solve this problem.

 

[pgg]

Just because healthcare isn't a fundamental human right (I agree, it's not) doesn't mean it's not in the best interest of nations and civilizations to pay for it with taxes.

Four lanes of well-maintained asphalt between my house and the hospital where I work isn't a "right" either but it's reasonable and beneficial to society for it to be paid for with taxes. Even if some people dont own cars.

If you want to draw the line in the sand at "no taxes for healthcare" that's a philosophical debate we can have, but don't muddy the issue by pretending that taxes on everyone to pay for healthcare for everyone (sick or not) isn't just insurance writ large. Of course it is.

 

[aneftp]

It's pretty simple how we correct healthcare.

Have a two payer system. National taxes like 15% VAT or some type of employer/employee 8/7% contribtion. Low co pays for basic care.

Key is basic care. Can't sue docs or other providers in a "nationized" health care system. Lawyers would love that.

Those making more (say 150k and up) can opt for private system for more boutique type of care.

The big issue will be figuring out what's "basic care"

 

[Onefellswoop87]

That is not necessarily how insurance is "supposed to work". That isn't how it works with most forms of insurance where risk is stratified and people pay according to that risk. In fact, medical insurance is actually unique in the regard that it indeed redistributes wealth exponentially and does an awful job at it. Young healthy folks with families subsidize older sick empty nesters who have had their lives to save.

Bottom line is healthcare isn't free and by definition cannot be a "right". We have to pay the providers. When people say it is a "right", they are essentially saying that they shouldn't be paying for it and other people should make up the difference.

Ask a young middle class family making $80,000/year and paying $20K per year in healthcare costs whether they are feeling that they are getting healthcare by their "rights".

Why does the right have anything to do with cost?

I have the right to bear arms. That doesn't mean a weapon or rounds or the certification is free. I have the right to peaceful assembly. But sometimes I have to pay for a permit to hold my rally. I have a right to legal representation in criminal matters. But if I can afford and want Johnnie Cochran to argue, then I pay above my taxes instead of a public defender.

If we, as a society, deem healthcare is a right, there is no inherent implication that it's free or physicians won't be paid. A secondary implication might be that pay changes based on other factors but not because we deem it a right. If we go to single payer and taxes pay for healthcare, that still doesn't mean it's free. It's just not paid for by swiping your credit card.

When people argue it's a right, I take that as it's a societal good that should be available and given to all, no matter their income level.

 

[Ignatius J]

Why does the right have anything to do with cost?

I have the right to bear arms. That doesn't mean a weapon or rounds or the certification is free. I have the right to peaceful assembly. But sometimes I have to pay for a permit to hold my rally. I have a right to legal representation in criminal matters. But if I can afford and want Johnnie Cochran to argue, then I pay above my taxes instead of a public defender.

If we, as a society, deem healthcare is a right, there is no inherent implication that it's free or physicians won't be paid. A secondary implication might be that pay changes based on other factors but not because we deem it a right. If we go to single payer and taxes pay for healthcare, that still doesn't mean it's free. It's just not paid for by swiping your credit card.

When people argue it's a right, I take that as it's a societal good that should be available and given to all, no matter their income level.

Okay, there you have it. By your definition. When you have a right, it doesn't mean it is free. You have said so yourself. You have a RIGHT to healthcare. That doesn't mean you don't have to pay the going rate for it.

And right now, it is not "given" to all. It is given to some at the expense of others. It is failed wealth redistribution.

 

[epidural man]

It's pretty simple how we correct healthcare.

Have a two payer system. National taxes like 15% VAT or some type of employer/employee 8/7% contribtion. Low co pays for basic care.

Key is basic care. Can't sue docs or other providers in a "nationized" health care system. Lawyers would love that.

Those making more (say 150k and up) can opt for private system for more boutique type of care.

The big issue will be figuring out what's "basic care"

Most issues mathematically are easily fixed. Social Security issues of running out in ~2024 is easily fixed mathematically. However, to fix these issues politically - that is the real nightmare.

 

[Onefellswoop87]

Okay, there you have it. By your definition. When you have a right, it doesn't mean it is free. You have said so yourself. You have a RIGHT to healthcare. That doesn't mean you don't have to pay the going rate for it.

And right now, it is not "given" to all. It is given to some at the expense of others. It is failed wealth redistribution.

Again, we lots of legal rights but there is no free lunch. But if you use them, they have to be paid for. I never meant to imply it could be taken just cause it's a right. Things get paid for by taxes or personal payments. All I meant to say was that defined as societal right has little to nothing at all to do with how we pay for it. One of your arguments against defining it as a right was that it makes it "free", which I believe you mean is free at time of use and paid for by taxes, and I disagree with that.

And not sure I said anything about the going rate or any rate for healthcare. Has the going rate for healthcare been defined? Is it set per person (a tax amount or percentage) or is it defined by free market forces or something inbetween? That's a consistent problem that it hasn't consistently been defined.

Aren't all taxes just money "given to some at the expense of others"? Sounds like a price to living in a first world society.

 

[Ignatius J]

Again, we lots of legal rights but there is no free lunch. But if you use them, they have to be paid for. I never meant to imply it could be taken just cause it's a right. Things get paid for by taxes or personal payments. All I meant to say was that defined as societal right has little to nothing at all to do with how we pay for it. One of your arguments against defining it as a right was that it makes it "free", which I believe you mean is free at time of use and paid for by taxes, and I disagree with that.

And not sure I said anything about the going rate or any rate for healthcare. Has the going rate for healthcare been defined? Is it set per person (a tax amount or percentage) or is it defined by free market forces or something inbetween? That's a consistent problem that it hasn't consistently been defined.

Aren't all taxes just money "given to some at the expense of others"? Sounds like a price to living in a first world society.

We can agree then that there is a difference between getting healthcare and paying for healthcare.

I am talking more about the private market, which is socialized. Young, healthy people are subsidizing older, sicker patients.

 

[Onefellswoop87]

We can agree then that there is a difference between getting healthcare and paying for healthcare.

I am talking more about the private market, which is socialized. Young, healthy people are subsidizing older, sicker patients.

Then don't buy insurance. You won't subsidize anyone.

But that's how the insurance market works. Young and health people subsidize the sicker. It works that way for auto insurance too. In all my years of car insurance (and insuring a motorcycle and my wife's car), my safe record has subsidized the one who wraps their Ferrari around a tree.

But if your aversion to it is that it's "socialized" I hope you don't send your kiddos to public school or ever call 911. Cause that's pretty "socialized".

 

[facted]

Then don't buy insurance. You won't subsidize anyone.

But that's how the insurance market works. Young and health people subsidize the sicker. It works that way for auto insurance too. In all my years of car insurance (and insuring a motorcycle and my wife's car), my safe record has subsidized the one who wraps their Ferrari around a tree.

But if your aversion to it is that it's "socialized" I hope you don't send your kiddos to public school or ever call 911. Cause that's pretty "socialized".

So true. Not to mention that we'll all be sick and old one day too. We're actually insuring ourselves over time with our premiums when we're young and healthy.

 

[deleted126335]

So true. Not to mention that we'll all be sick and old one day too. We're actually insuring ourselves over time with our premiums when we're young and healthy.

Not really. We are paying for someone else to reap the benefits of our premiums when we are healthy. We hope to reap the benefits of someone else paying premiums when we are sick. Think of it like public schools and property Taxes in reverse. You reap the benefits of somebody else paying taxes when you are young so you can have a decent education. When you are old you are paying for some other children to reap that benefit.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

 

[Ignatius J]

Then don't buy insurance. You won't subsidize anyone.

But that's how the insurance market works. Young and health people subsidize the sicker. It works that way for auto insurance too. In all my years of car insurance (and insuring a motorcycle and my wife's car), my safe record has subsidized the one who wraps their Ferrari around a tree.

But if your aversion to it is that it's "socialized" I hope you don't send your kiddos to public school or ever call 911. Cause that's pretty "socialized".

Public schools are free to everyone as is police officer help. Bad examples. Socialism works for some things. Not for private insurance. Proof is in the pudding. The system is collapsing and would be all but dead if there wasn't the (imo) unconstitutional mandate. Also, law enforcement and education is a collective good. Individual health is not.

And as mentioned, I don't pay for health insurance.

And if I don't want to pay for health insurance, I shouldn't be penalized.

 

[deleted126335]

Public schools are "free" because lots of people pay taxes. Go ahead don't buy insurance. Get sick...people will care for you and then use the force of law to take your assets to pay for the services that were extended to you.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

 

[facted]

Not really. We are paying for someone else to reap the benefits of our premiums when we are healthy. We hope to reap the benefits of someone else paying premiums when we are sick. Think of it like public schools and property Taxes in reverse. You reap the benefits of somebody else paying taxes when you are young so you can have a decent education. When you are old you are paying for some other children to reap that benefit.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

Yes and no. The problem with health insurance is that we all utilize it. It's not like homeowners where we subsidize the guy who has a fire. We're all gonna have a fire... It's a question of when. Which is why, in my view, we're just paying in over time and the young should be mandated to have insurance.

I agree we're paying in now hoping that the money will be there In the future.

 

[Ignatius J]

Yes and no. The problem with health insurance is that we all utilize it. It's not like homeowners where we subsidize the guy who has a fire. We're all gonna have a fire... It's a question of when. Which is why, in my view, we're just paying in over time and the young should be mandated to have insurance.

I agree we're paying in now hoping that the money will be there In the future.

Not everyone uses it nearly the same amount. And others work harder than others and make smarter decisions not to use it.

 

[Ignatius J]

Public schools are "free" because lots of people pay taxes. Go ahead don't buy insurance. Get sick...people will care for you and then use the force of law to take your assets to pay for the services that were extended to you.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

Okay. Why isn't my health insurance "free"?

 

[Onefellswoop87]

Public schools are free to everyone as is police officer help. Bad examples. Socialism works for some things. Not for private insurance. Proof is in the pudding. The system is collapsing and would be all but dead if there wasn't the (imo) constitutional mandate. Also, law enforcement and education is a collective good. Individual health is not.

And as mentioned, I don't pay for health insurance.

And if I don't want to pay for health insurance, I shouldn't be penalized.

Socialism as defined by Miriam Webster: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

Change good to service and that's exactly what public school and emergency services are.

I actually do agree you shouldn't be penalized for not having it. But if you get sick, I hope you can afford it all. And if you can't, then you shouldn't be able to declare bankruptcy then have some portion of debt forgiven so the public winds up subsidizing your bad luck/poor choices in the end.

So it's in the public's best interest to have everyone covered in the largest pool of potential patients.

 

[Ignatius J]

Socialism as defined by Miriam Webster: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

Change good to service and that's exactly what public school and emergency services are.

I actually do agree you shouldn't be penalized for not having it. But if you get sick, I hope you can afford it all. And if you can't, then you shouldn't be able to declare bankruptcy then have some portion of debt forgiven so the public winds up subsidizing your bad luck/poor choices in the end.

So it's in the public's best interest to have everyone covered in the largest pool of potential patients.

There are a lot of debts taken out that people can't pay. Should we socialize mortgages that almost caused the economy to collapse in 2008?

Without the mandate, healthy patients wouldn't sign up and prices would be even higher. The mandate is the only thing propping up the death spiral.

Socialism of an unequally used good/trade does not work.

 

[Onefellswoop87]

There are a lot of debts taken out that people can't pay. Should we socialize mortgages that almost caused the economy to collapse in 2008?

Without the mandate, healthy patients wouldn't sign up and prices would be even higher. The mandate is the only thing propping up the death spiral.

Socialism of an unequally used good/trade does not work.

You are welcome to rent for your entire life. Good luck being healthy for your entire life. You are comparing apples and oranges.

 

[Ignatius J]

You are welcome to rent for your entire life. Good luck being healthy for your entire life. You are comparing apples and oranges.

I'm not the only one.

 

[deleted126335]

Okay. Why isn't my health insurance "free"?

You are being deliberately obtuse.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

 

[Ignatius J]

You are being deliberately obtuse.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

No, I am not. I made a simple point that private healthcare is socialized and that is why it is failing. You can say it needs to be this way and that way and it is like school or whatever, but the only thing that matters is that one is failing and one is not. So there are clearly differences if outcomes are different.

By the way, education cost is socializing as well and responsible in part for skyrocketing education costs.

 

[facted]

There are a lot of debts taken out that people can't pay. Should we socialize mortgages that almost caused the economy to collapse in 2008?

Without the mandate, healthy patients wouldn't sign up and prices would be even higher. The mandate is the only thing propping up the death spiral.

Socialism of an unequally used good/trade does not work.

The mandate is essential if we are to guarantee care for those that walk into the ER. If we're not going to guarantee care, and pre existing conditions don't need to be covered, I agree we don't need the mandate.

To believe that we don't need a mandate but that we should cover pre-existing conditions shows a complete lack of understanding of how insurance works.

 

[Ignatius J]

The mandate is essential if we are to guarantee care for those that walk into the ER. If we're not going to guarantee care, and pre existing conditions don't need to be covered, I agree we don't need the mandate.

To believe that we don't need a mandate but that we should cover pre-existing conditions shows a complete lack of understanding of how insurance works.

Regardless of payer system, getting treatment in an ER is always guaranteed.

 

[GravelRider]

No, I am not. I made a simple point that private healthcare is socialized and that is why it is failing. You can say it needs to be this way and that way and it is like school or whatever, but the only thing that matters is that one is failing and one is not. So there are clearly differences if outcomes are different.

By the way, education cost is socializing as well and responsible in part for skyrocketing education costs.

Healthcare is failing because of the arms race in consolidation between payers and providers. There is no real competition and an absurd inflation in prices that the vast majority of Americans would never be able to afford...even for simple, straightforward care. Have you ever seen a hospital bill?

If you think the cost of healthcare should only be shouldered by those who are sick then you might very well be out of a job because at current prices the vast majority of the sick would not be able to afford even basic care.

Now if you want to force the sick to pay for their own care to usher in the collapse of the healthcare system then I'm all for that. The system needs to collapse.

 

[Ignatius J]

Healthcare is failing because of the arms race in consolidation between payers and providers. There is no real competition and an absurd inflation in prices that the vast majority of Americans would never be able to afford...even for simple, straightforward care. Have you ever seen a hospital bill?

If you think the cost of healthcare should only be shouldered by those who are sick then you might very well be out of a job because at current prices the vast majority of the sick would not be able to afford even basic care.

Now if you want to force the sick to pay for their own care to usher in the collapse of the healthcare system then I'm all for that. The system needs to collapse.

Are you saying all we have to do is break-up insurance companies and practices and costs fix themselves? That is laughable. Practice consolidation and insurance consolidation is a symptom. Not the disease.

Not even going to go into your 2nd and 3rd paragraph because it isn't a genuine take on my overall point.

 

[aneftp]

20% of people are on free Medicaid. 15% are on Medicare. 60% are on commercial insurance. 5% are on military tricare type of insurance.

So roughly 40% are already on some type of socialized medical program.

In socialized medicine countries. About 15-20% are getting a "free ride"

We got 20% getting a "free ride" and another 20% major discount

 

[Mad Jack]

This chart disagrees. No metric that I'm aware of demonstrates our nation's supposed superiority to nations with single-payer systems.

Implying that the health care system is the only thing that affects life expectancy is kind of ridiculous- we've got one of the most unhealthy baseline populations in the world. Medicine can't make patients thin or force them to put down the cigarettes, it's essentially dealing with the consequences of the lifestyles of your patients. The health care system is actually pretty good for those that can afford it, as a wealthy person in the United States has a higher life expectancy than the average person anywhere else in the world

But not everyone can afford the great care our system is capable of providing, so there is a substantial wealth gap in life expectancy. Single payer would likely narrow that gap by bringing the top down and the bottom up, and would be "better" in the metrics single payer advocates push for, but it would not truly be better in the sense that the best care is available, merely that acceptable care is available for everyone. There's a reason the wealthy from all over the world come to the US for treatment...

But hey, you want to throw out all that innovation that eventually spreads to the rest of the world and improves quality of life for everyone as cost decreases, be my guest.

 

[chessknt]

Implying that the health care system is the only thing that affects life expectancy is kind of ridiculous- we've got one of the most unhealthy baseline populations in the world. Medicine can't make patients thin or force them to put down the cigarettes, it's essentially dealing with the consequences of the lifestyles of your patients. The health care system is actually pretty good for those that can afford it, as a wealthy person in the United States has a higher life expectancy than the average person anywhere else in the world

But not everyone can afford the great care our system is capable of providing, so there is a substantial wealth gap in life expectancy. Single payer would likely narrow that gap by bringing the top down and the bottom up, and would be "better" in the metrics single payer advocates push for, but it would not truly be better in the sense that the best care is available, merely that acceptable care is available for everyone. There's a reason the wealthy from all over the world come to the US for treatment...

But hey, you want to throw out all that innovation that eventually spreads to the rest of the world and improves quality of life for everyone as cost decreases, be my guest.

Length of life is a poor metric once you get in to the 80s.

Consider a wealthy scenario: nstemi leading to Cath, 4 months later with gi bleed leading to egd, 10 months later with hip fracture leading to repair and snf admit. Maybe a pneumonia or uti, and several years later and they either have worsening dementia leading to 24/7 care or a cancer diagnosis with 6 rounds of chemo until they succumb unable to move for the past month due to pain and chemo neuropathy.

Same person but in a socialized system (or 'poor'): nstemi treated medically, gets same gi bleed also treated medically and a transfusion. Has same fall but put on a waiting list for surgery and dies of a massive pe while waiting.

2 years or so of less life, significantly less cost, arguably no difference in functional independence while alive until the end but it would be the same.relative debiliry in both. So saying we improve quality of life with all the expensive **** we do is not fair at all--we simply prolong the inevitable for a population which cannot legally be told no, frequently to just get people back to nursing homes or a barely functional existence at home until the next fall or accidental overdose or aspiration or uti etc happens.

 

[dhb]

Same person but in a socialized system (or 'poor'): nstemi treated medically, gets same gi bleed also treated medically and a transfusion. Has same fall but put on a waiting list for surgery and dies of a massive pe while waiting.

In my socialized system this patient is going to get the cath the gi scope and the hip fixed. That's why i say there is a bubble of futile and non beneficial care in "first world" countries.

 

[chessknt]

In my socialized system this patient is going to get the cath the gi scope and the hip fixed. That's why i say there is a bubble of futile and non beneficial care in "first world" countries.

Wow that's interesting to know. I though 80 year olds were treated with more conservative care by social and medical norms in essentially every other country

 

[Ignatius J]

Implying that the health care system is the only thing that affects life expectancy is kind of ridiculous- we've got one of the most unhealthy baseline populations in the world. Medicine can't make patients thin or force them to put down the cigarettes, it's essentially dealing with the consequences of the lifestyles of your patients. The health care system is actually pretty good for those that can afford it, as a wealthy person in the United States has a higher life expectancy than the average person anywhere else in the world

But not everyone can afford the great care our system is capable of providing, so there is a substantial wealth gap in life expectancy. Single payer would likely narrow that gap by bringing the top down and the bottom up, and would be "better" in the metrics single payer advocates push for, but it would not truly be better in the sense that the best care is available, merely that acceptable care is available for everyone. There's a reason the wealthy from all over the world come to the US for treatment...

But hey, you want to throw out all that innovation that eventually spreads to the rest of the world and improves quality of life for everyone as cost decreases, be my guest.

Great article here. America is top country in the world for life expectancy after accounting for violent injuries. Incredible considering our baseline health rate being inferior to most developed countries.

The Myth of Americans' Poor Life Expectancy

 

[deleted682700]

It's all an accounting scheme. The real costs? Or the bloated bill from the hospitals cannot be afforded. Step in insurance scams. Now one cannot pay even that premiums. Result is decreased care and rationing of care. ROI is what counts for the scarce health dollars.

You can be promised a great pension and Medicare and SS. Alan Greenspan, we can guarantee cash but cannot ensure purchasing power. Keep working and pay into Medicare and SS etc but don't expect anything from it because inflation will eat away all that purchasing power.