__________
#10 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-08-16 08:57 PM
The United States Spends More on Healthcare per Person than Other Wealthy Countries ...
U.S. healthcare spending per capita is almost twice the average of other wealthy countries ...
The United States spends more on administrative costs but less on long-term care than other wealthy countries ...
There it is - very high "administrative costs" because :
1) they are mandated by politicians in Congress / states / municipalities on healthcare providers and insurers, whose services are mandated but margins are extremely low, as "reimbursement rates" keep getting lower
2) required bureaucracy to stave off "nuisence lawsuits"
3) the legal costs of "healthcare" are extremely high in the US relative to "other wealthy countries" because the governments are dominated by lawyers
The United States has worse healthcare outcomes compared to other wealthy countries ...
So, the "healthcare-for-profit" model sees to result in more money going to the companies that administer health care, resulting in a poorer outcome for those who receive that healthcare. Quelle surprise.
No surprise. Wrong conclusions are derived by trying to apply a single-variable "combined average" apples-to-trees comparisons and then attributed to / correlated with the unrelated causation.
Not the first time the faulty premises, used by politicians and the media to feed biased/wrong conclusions to uninformed / mis-educated hoi polloi, so then later "based on polls," it led to wrong policies.
Fallacy: Cherry Picking Data | There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics (and cherry-picked data "interpretations")
The "health outcomes" (however they are defined) and longevity depend on many factors, the main of which are demographics, education, income distribution, epidemiology, geography (rural vs urban population), culture (food, eating habits / obesity / chronic diseases, drug use / overdoses / injuries / chronic diseases etc.) - i.e., when the "diversity" of the "average" US population and geography is taken into account - any of which has very little to do with the "quality of healthcare" in the US.
Besides the fact that "average" is very imperfect non-qualitative measurement, for example, women (and men) in the "blue zones" of the US are living 10 years longer, "on average," than average US woman's age, and longer than women in many "other wealthy countries" - compare longevity and health of these "wealthy" and mostly White states, with the population of "other [mostly White] wealthy states" and the picture of the "quality of healthcare" will change dramatically.
Why don't you do a study of "wealthy mostly White" states with "wealthy not mostly White states" and "not wealthy states" and see if there is a difference in longevity and quality - all of them having the same "for-profit" healthcare. Quelle surprise?
The problem of expense will still exist, because of issues not related to healthcare itself but because the US politicians at the highest levels, as in Congress, states and municipal governments, and administrative sector are mostly lawyers and "activists" (demanding more bureaucracy) and not doctors who are forced to practice "defensive medicine" and often reduced to .
There is absolutely no evidence that the "healthcare" itself in the US is inferior to any other wealthy or "free and universal healthcare" (whatever that means) country, in fact people flock to the US when they need higher quality or necessary health care that may not be available in their country at any price.
But "grass is always greener..."
__________