You're assuming the US healthcare system isn't equally underfunded. The US has massive doctors shortages (especially in rural areas), and that's not counting all the care the US just doesn't do because people instead just die since they can't afford to go to the hospital.

> You're assuming the US healthcare system isn't equally underfunded.

You don't have to assume. It costs twice as much as the most expensive health systems on earth, but delivers Afghanistan-level life expectancies. The problem isn't that we're spending too little.

If you are going to use life expectancy you should at least not use hyperbole to compare. It would be fair to claim the US spends the most on earth but only gets Polish levels of life expectancy.

Afghanistan is a whole decade off that cohort.

I have really no opinion on any of this, but please realize there are more factors than health care on life expectancy.

What is a better metric and how does the US do on it?

Infant mortality (but that's also tricky because of differences in reporting between countries), cancer survival rates.

Life expectancy is a particularly bad metric to use to compare health care systems, because it's heavily influenced by (1) how much people drive, (2) how much violent crime there is, and (3) how much drug addiction the country has. None of those are health care metrics.

I don't believe there's any credible critic of American health care that premises their complaint on America delivering bad health care. We deliver pretty excellent health care, and we deliver it faster than a lot of countries with better health care outcomes. We are in many places in the US overprovisioned for care (by measurements like empty hospital beds, or overprescription of elective procedures). The chief complaint about American health care is how expensive it is, not how good it is.

That distinction is especially important because getting costs down may involve confronting the ways American care is better than it needs to be or should be. For instance: we do a lot more elective surgeries than countries with better outcomes, in part because we do them outpatient here, and they're inpatient (a much bigger deal) elsewhere. For example, my understanding is you're much more likely to get a hernia repaired (probably needlessly) here than in the UK.

I don't know, but almost everything is more complicated than people often make it out to be. Unless you'd like to spend 40+ hours/days/years researching it, you're probably better off trying to be more laid back.

And yet people skip tons of routine checks because they cost too much.

Ontario is consistently the lowest spender per capita on health in the country.

Ref: https://www.fao-on.org/en/Blog/Publications/interprovincial-...

It's being underfunded by at least 10-15%, which is a lot for a system expected to run as cost effectively as possible. I'm getting that number from the average of $5336 vs ON at $4800. 4800/5336 = ~89%

I don't think we should aspire to US levels of GDP share. That seems quite excessive.

I think the solutions to our issues are structural changes and adequate funding.