.

Thorn, did you not know that the reason Americans pay more for prescription drugs is so that everyone else in the world can pay less.  I think the video is correct that we don't have the price negotiation that other countries have, but since we meet the pharmaceutical companies' profit expectations, they are free to sell their products more cheaply elsewhere.

While we are bragging about how expensive drugs are, I should disclose that one of my cancer drugs carries a retail price tag of $24,000 for a 90-day supply.  I'm glad I have a medicare drug plan which reduces my out-of-pocket cost to only $2,200.

According to his first chart Americans pay more in taxes for a healthcare system that gives them nothing (unless they're young, old or poor) than every other country that has a "healthcare for all" system.

So why would Americans prefer to pay more - for no benefit - AND then have to pay health insurance premiums on top in order to get benefits? (even if the employer pays they still pay through reduced salary)

It seems pretty clear that in the home of free market capitalism FMC has completely failed to deliver true competition, efficiency and value for money in the US health insurance market.

So why do so many Americans seem willing to fight to the death to keep it?  Because - forget the crap about libertarianism and freedom of choice - it all comes down to value for money. We all need good healthcare and we all want the best price.
 

According to his first chart Americans pay more in taxes for a healthcare system that gives them nothing (unless they're young, old or poor) than every other country that has a "healthcare for all" system.

 

So why would Americans prefer to pay more - for no benefit - AND then have to pay health insurance premiums on top in order to get benefits? (even if the employer pays they still pay through reduced salary)

 

It seems pretty clear that in the home of free market capitalism FMC has completely failed to deliver true competition, efficiency and value for money in the US health insurance market.

 

So why do so many Americans seem willing to fight to the death to keep it?  Because - forget the crap about libertarianism and freedom of choice - it all comes down to value for money. We all need good healthcare and we all want the best price.

 

And you can thank Americans and their medical innovations for you're good healthcare. 

And you can thank Americans and their medical innovations for you're good healthcare. 

Americans hardly have monopoly on medical innovation. Penicillin was discovered by a Scotsman, x-rays by a German, vaccination by an Englishman, insulin by a Canadian, blood groups by an Austrian... Should I go on? Pharmaceutical companies in the US that develop new drugs today sell those drugs for a fucktonne more than it cost to develop them. In my opinion, health care is not supposed to make money. It's supposed to make healthy people. It's not supposed to lose money either, but health care for profit just rubs me the wrong way. Just like education for profit. Education shouldn't be something reserved for the privileged, it should be available for anyone. 

Americans hardly have monopoly on medical innovation. Penicillin was discovered by a Scotsman, x-rays by a German, vaccination by an Englishman, insulin by a Canadian, blood groups by an Austrian... Should I go on?

Anything from the last 50 years? 

Anything from the last 50 years? 

Swine flu vaccines were developed and produced independently by Australian CSL, British GlaxoSmithKline and American Baxter International. HIV was discovered by Frenchman Luc Montagnier and American Robert Gallo, independent of one another, and no one can quite say which of them made the discovery first.

And you can thank Americans and their medical innovations for you're good healthcare. 

I'm not sure of the point you're making. Are you saying there is a connection between the very important healthcare advances that have been developed in the US, and the US system for delivering that healthcare to its citizens? Surely most people would agree that the first is impressive, the second is... well, let's be kind and say not so impressive But is there a connection? Can't you have both impressive innovation AND value for money at the point of delivery: good healthcare and at the best price?

Anything from the last 50 years? 

As for Mike's point, over the last 50 years not so much. I can't speak for other countries but Britain's contribution was innovation and discovery of fundamental knowledge - like antibiotics, inoculation - which didn't require vast resources (same with Christian Barnard pioneering heart transplant surgery in South Africa in the 1960s). The other point is that most of Britain's contribution happened because of blue skies / curiosity driven research. But no-one can afford to do that now. Research today is target driven - we want a solution to this problem and we want it by xxxxx. That means huge resources that generally only US companies are big enough to deliver. In Britain we only have one truly big company, GlaxoSmithKline. However, this may be about to change when the Francis Crick Institute opens in London next year. This is a $1 billion+ interdisciplinary biomedical research centre funded by two of Britain's leading medical research charities and three London universities plus a government grant. Francis Crick co-discovered the structure of DNA with Maurice Wilkins and the American James Watson - that required very little money, just lots of brain power and a bit of luck

Thanks for that, wildone. One of the biggest selling drugs ever Viagra is a good example of serendipitous discovery. The drug, originally known as UK92480, was developed to treat heart problems like angina but trials were disappointing. The drug failed to deliver its brief and Pfizer were about to pull the plug but many trial volunteers had reported an unusual side effect - lots of erections Pfizer had the good sense to find out what was going on and threw some more money at it. The rest, as they say, is history. It proves again that the old fashioned "curiosity" approach to science can pay off big time
 

I hope this hyper video will motivate a few people to read up, where they have time to examine the graphs. This is all well known, and the video seems a pretty good summary. I agree with MikeL, if our drug costs fall, others' will rise. The video understates the costs of collection and how the uncertainty of funding drives up costs in US hospitals. They bill roughly three times what they settle for, on average, but they can't count on a steady average. It's crazy.

I hope this hyper video will motivate a few people to read up, where they have time to examine the graphs. This is all well known, and the video seems a pretty good summary. I agree with MikeL, if our drug costs fall, others' will rise. The video understates the costs of collection and how the uncertainty of funding drives up costs in US hospitals. They bill roughly three times what they settle for, on average, but they can't count on a steady average. It's crazy.

The "cross subsidies" that have been suggested indicate that in the US there is a failure of the free market in the US healthcare system. Worse, it could be viewed as fraudulent - the customer should be charged a price that fairly relates to the product / service bought.

Surely, if any country advocates the free market system it is the US. So how can you 1. justify and 2. tolerate such a gross and blatant disregard of the basic principle of a free market? Especially when the consequence is that each and every one of you that pays taxes and healthcare premiums (whether directly or via your pay package) is being fleeced of maybe thousands of dollars each and every year. Even in apathetic Britain that would have us camped out on the streets in protest

 

 

Surely, if any country advocates the free market system it is the US. So how can you 1. justify and 2. tolerate such a gross and blatant disregard of the basic principle of a free market?

We did somewhat until Obamacare came along. Most of us still advocate the free market, hence, the move to overturn Obamacare.

Nowhere else in the world can someone be wheeled into an ER with an heart-attack and receive the kind of care they can here in the US, with or without insurance.

That's the problem with Obamacare, a lot of people see it as a fix to the system when in reality it's only demands you have health insurance or pay an additional tax and has nothing whatsoever to do with health care. We already have, IMHO,  the best health care in the world. We need to be able to buy insurance across state lines (real competition) and have some type of tort reform.

I know most people will deny what I say, but the sad fact is that healthcare isn't that advanced, and the number of sick people is increasing, not decreasing.  An advanced healthcare system would be reducing numbers of sick people.

There's a fundamental problem with people's view of what healthcare consists of.  In America, and probably in other countrys, healthcare is seen as involving doctors, drugs and surgeries.  I am awed at this concept.  It's the reason why people spend so much on it.  There is no way, as Thorne would like it to be, that anyone is going to spend their time helping the sick and not be compensated for it.  It's going to cost no matter how you do it.  Out of pocket or taxes.  Nothing can ever be free when it requires time and work from others.

Anyway, the biggest mystery for me is people's unquestioning dependence on doctors and hospitals for their health needs.  If your health is important to you, why would you turn over it's maintenance to someone else?  People do the same thing with money.  Nobody ever got rich letting a financial manager take care of their money, and I don't know anyone who was cured by doctors or drugs.  I know lots of people who are managing their illness with doctors and drugs, and they will likely be doing that until the day they die.  The benefits are two as far as I can tell.  One, they have less severe symptoms because of their drug therapy.  Two, they don't have to take personal responsibility for their illness, the doctor is doing that for them.  That's another reason healthcare as we know it is so expensive.  Doctors need extremely expensive insurance to protect themselves from financial ruin when soemone sues them for making some kind of mistake that harms them.

Heathcare, in reality, involves personal choices, and a proactive attitude about maintaining your own health.  People need to learn for themselves what it takes to maintain good health, and doctors generally don't know the answer to that themselves.  The few who do are out of the mainstream.

Almost every illness people suffer from is the result of poor choices and improper lifestyles.  Eating anything that tastes good and giving no thought to it's effects on your body is about as irresponsible as it gets.  Sitting in  front of the TV drinking pop and eating chips is going to harm your overall health. 

Your body has needs that no doctor or hospital can provide.  It needs good food, not food that simply tastes good.  It needs exercise, not a comfortable chair and a picture to stare at.  It needs to have it's control center (aka brain) exercised as well, instead of being occupied with the sounds of a movie or whatever music you want to hear.

Your body has needs, and only you can provide them.  No body else can do it.  Drugs can't, doctors can't, the government can't, your insurance company can't.  All those things can do is make it a little easier to live with whatever illness you might have, and there's no guarantee that they will even do that.

There are, I'm sure, a few exceptions to what I say, but they are very few.  It's a matter of choice.  You either learn how to maintain your health yourself, or you get sick and spend your life and your money hoping doctors will do it for you.  That's two choices, and there's no way around it.

Almost every illness people suffer from is the result of poor choices and improper lifestyles.  Eating anything that tastes good and giving no thought to it's effects on your body is about as irresponsible as it gets.  Sitting in  front of the TV drinking pop and eating chips is going to harm your overall health. 

 

I agree with much of what you say except for this para. "Almost every illness" I'd change to "Many illnesses" because a significant number of diseases have genetic causes over which the individual has no control. It is those diseases where "personal responsibility" has no relevance - because they are part of the lottery of life, pure chance whether you're blessed with "good" genes or "bad". And it is those same diseases where advanced medicine offers real solutions to problems.

Also, we've evolved to eat food that tastes good. Nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is that food manufacturers have deliberately chosen to make food that "tastes good" but which is actually harmful - full of cheap sugar that they know we love and become addicted to but which is nutritionally valueless and causes people to suffer health problems like diabetes and obesity; or maybe transfats that are a cheap way to achieve the taste they know we like but, again, are nutritionally valueless and harmful. These manufacturers know this but cynically they do it anyway because it increases their profits.

Governments give manufacturers an ordered society - and therefore a "market" - for these manufacturers to exploit, but when those manufacturers set out to harm people for the sake of their greed and profit then it is the role of government to intervene, control and regulate these companies to stop them harming the people in the society they govern.

.