> At 50% I'd expect the US to provide at least some healthcare :(

So would many Americans. But those defense contractors need their cut. And non-US projects tend to be more expensive than other countries as well.

Surprising to most, the US governments spend a higher percent of GDP on healthcare than most European countries[1]. Then we also have high private sector spending on healthcare. Its pretty crazy.

[1] https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-...

Those comparisons aren't very enlightening if you don't compare the quality of services provided.

Luckily for you the OECD [1] and WHO [2] did just that and the results are awful for America, performing markedly worse than systems that cost one third as much.

[1] https://www.oecd.org/unitedstates/Health-at-a-Glance-2017-Ke...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_rank...

Great, that's exactly what I was talking about.

I'm not sure what warrants that tone, when I was simply stating something obvious (you can't judge a healthcare system by its cost if you don't look at the outcomes).

Thank you for contributing more valuable data/information.

It's interesting to see that the WHO methodology also got criticized. This points to the complexity of actually picking the right metrics/outcomes you want to optimize for.

> I'm not sure what warrants that tone...

Sorry if it didn't come across that way, it was meant to be light-hearted ^_^ tone doesn't always carry well over the internet. I wasn't criticizing you at all.

The OECD data is pretty damning. America leads its peers in obesity, smoking, air pollution and bankruptcies, and lags dramatically (1-2 standard deviations) in consultations skipped due to cost, population coverage, life expectancy, doctors per capita and beds per capita. Mission failed, IMO.

All for the low, low price of twice to three times what most other countries spend.

Does it really matter how much better it is when you can go immediately bankrupt from a simple procedure? I imagine there is immense pressure and loss of wealth by simple virtue that people probably don't maintain good health but go in when it gets bad enough that going bankrupt is worse than dying or being violently ill with no end in sight.

You're muddying several issues here. I'm simply stating that the value of a healthcare system in terms of outcomes must be compared to how much it costs. What you're talking about is how the system is financed, which is a different issue.

For example, as a French citizen, I would expect that if we're in the top 5 in terms of spending (regardless of whether it's done privately or publicly), we should have a system that's in the top 5 in terms of outcomes.

I wasn't in any way trying to suggest the US healthcare system is the "best" or whatever, just pointing out that pure cost comparisons are meaningless.

You would hope an increase in cost is correlated to an increase in the quality of care.

That does provide healthcare - Medicare and Medicaid, which I believe covers about half of the US population. One reason some are opposed to going to a government paid system is the fact that we spend so much on that where if the costs were simply doubled it'd be a rediculous expense.

Well, by looking at more advanced countries that do have universal healthcare at fairly reasonable tax rates, there are models for how it can be done without doubling our taxes..

> One reason some are opposed to going to a government paid system is the fact that we spend so much on that where if the costs were simply doubled it'd be a rediculous expense.

They're wrong because Medicare and Medicaid are more efficient and control costs better than the private sector. Costs are already more than doubled once you add in the private sector. Even if taxes were doubled y'all would still end up paying less on the net because your employers are already paying for healthcare, which is a private tax.

>One reason some are opposed to going to a government paid system is the fact that we spend so much on that where if the costs were simply doubled it'd be a rediculous expense.

Or maybe people would realize a County like Germany is able to cover the entire County (2x as many people as Medicare) while spending half the Medicare budget. Then, questions of waste and fraud might pop up, which no one involved wants to happen.

Germany's healthcare is very efficient, but definitely very conservative in the treatments.

Issues are often just ignored until they go away. It usually works fine though, so it's not necessarily bad.

>Issues are often just ignored until they go away.

In someways thats part of the reason our Medicare program is so expensive.

In the US we essentially go an entire lifetime without regular/preventative care, then when patients become eligible for Medicare, they have a lifetime worth of chronic illness that is treated on the tax payers dime.

7 out of 10 Medicare have at least 1 chronic condition, and chronic conditions are notoriously expensive to treat. Whereas nearly 100% of chronic conditions could be avoided if the patient had regular/preventative care (for example identifying prediabetics or patients with high blood pressure, or heart disease) while they were young enough to make the lifestyle changes to avoid these conditions altogether. Our system is essentially designed to ensure patients are both chronically ill and expensive before they are eligible for coverage.

Excess care and excess testing are not always correlated with better health outcomes. Doing more isn't always better.

Medicare and Medicaid cover about 1/3 of the us population.

They are about half of the spending though. Old people use a lot of health care.