Here in the US I had stage III cancer. I was receiving full blown cancer treatment(s) less than a week after I went to the ER with symptoms (chest port + three types of chemo drugs). And that's routine. The US health care failures are mostly the fault of administrators and insurance companies gaming the public. The care is fast + extensive and it's not a cesspool.

And the "full hospital" meme isn't entirely accurate. The US hospital wards are -- by design -- supposed to be full. If 100 beds are allocated for severe flu cases (example) but there's only 25 patients they'll shift the flu ward to 35. Thus they achieve a 75% capacity for the flu beds and allocate the additional beds to other sections. Sometimes the American media (sensationalist by design) will report this as "OH MY GOD THE FLU WARD IS NEAR CAPACITY. 75% FULL!!" without reporting total beds vs flu beds.

While it's nice that you were able to get quick treatment, there are tons of people who never receive any or adequate treatment because they are absolutely terrified of what the cost will mean for themselves and their families.

Hospital capacity depends on the number of staff capable of supporting it. You could have a room with a thousand beds, but if you've got two nurses, your capacity is a tiny fraction of that.

It's laughable to call the US healthcare system bad, but I feel like that sort of treatment should be commonplace and universal for what we pay here. The UK has spent about 10 percent of GDP over the last ten years. The US spends 20 percent. It's going somewhere, but I don't think it's going towards care at quite the same rate as over healthcare systems. Even 15 percent of US GDP would be $3 trillion, or more than the entirety of UK total GDP.

Its 16.77% of GDP for the US currently. Germany is at 11.70%. I think Germany is probably the most reasonably run health care system to compare against since Germany doesn't have the collapse of healthcare issues of UK or Canada we keep hearing about.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.GD.ZS?most_...

> Even 15 percent of US GDP would be $3 trillion, or more than the entirety of UK total GDP.

It's almost like the two countries might not be meaningfully comparable.

> Privatization of hospital systems in the US have lead to very warped incentives, where C sections are the norm because it’s faster and more money for the hospital and Drs.

The US rate of c-sections was 32% in 2017 (and roughly the same for 2020), the same as Switzerland. It's 27.7% in Canada, 33.7% in Australia and 27.4% in the UK.

28% across the OECD, 30% in Germany, 45% in South Korea, 34% in Italy.

So much for that.

https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/fa1f7281-en/index.html?i...

Your own source disagrees.

Per your own link: “ Variations in caesarean section rates across countries have been attributed to a number of factors, including financial incentives, malpractice liability concerns, differences in the availability and training of midwives and nurses, and the proportion of women who access private maternity care. For example, there is evidence that private hospitals tend to perform more caesarean sections than public hospitals. In Switzerland, caesarean sections were found to be substantially higher in private clinics (41%) than in public hospitals (30.5%) (OFSP, 2013[1]).”

Privatization correlates to more C-Sections.