The US government does spend huge sums of money on healthcare.

Medicare and Medicaid are 21% and 16%, respectively, of total healthcare spending as of 2018. [0]

That's 37% of the total.

Given that total healthcare spending is about $11,172 per capita, that's $4,133.64 per capita. [0]

The UK spent £2,989 per person in 2017 in total. [1]

It's not correct to do so, but using today's GBP to USD exchange rate that's roughly $3850.

This puts US per capita government spending alone (keep in mind it's Federal + state) in the same ballpark as the UK's entire healthcare expenditure per capita.

> On top of that, the actual cost of care is far, far higher than in other developed nations for the same procedures, due to many systemic problems.

Sure is. This is a huge issue and IMO the issue to solve. But sadly, no candidate is really digging into why costs are so much higher outside of administrative overhead (which is real, but eliminating it doesn't solve the problem).

[0] https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Sta...

[1] https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthan...

Has anyone estimated the impact of costly lawsuits->higher professional insurance costs->higher prices->higher medical insurance prices vicious cycle ?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001429212...

If you read more, I believe diagnostic testing comes out to 0.5% of GDP in the UK vs. 2% of GDP in the US, a far bigger effect than the difference in salaries.

So yes, there is some indication that lawsuits can lead to more tests and thus wildly higher testing costs.

I wonder if this is also leading to doctors to favoring newer medications that should be "the best" versus cheaper generics that would be more cost effective for a particular ailment.

Speaking of which, the way drug approvals and patents work also increases costs, and there are perhaps some small tweaks like permitting foreign first-world drug approvals to count in the US as well that might also help keep a lid on costs.

Currently, Virginia is capped at $2.4 million. https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title8.01/chapter21.1/se...

Sounds like a lot on first glance, but if you're young and lose a lifetime of income, or need a lifetime of assistance/follow-on care, due to negligence, it's a drop in the bucket.

Ok, I misspoke there, but the US government does not spend anything on you if you don't qualify for one of these two programs.

That's not true. Poor people can get Medicaid, old people can get Medicare, and there are also various other ways of getting one's health care expenses subsidized by the government if you're poor or have medical reasons for not being able to work.

Just to be clear:

I'm for 100% state-funded medical care, but it's simply not true that "the government doesn't pay for anything; only private insurers do". The government does pay for quite a lot, even if many people in the US don't qualify for such aid.

They absolutely should qualify for such aid, in my view, but my opinion doesn't change anything. Some people qualify, some don't, and the government does pay for some, and private insurance does not pay for absolutely everything in the US. These are just facts.

Lots and lots of people already have "government healthcare". Just not enough.

And even in states where you might be eligible, it's not going to help you (or the public) if you haven't enrolled.

The US government spends about the same on healthcare as many other governments, which makes the terrible standard of care even more confusing.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthan...