I don't know the numbers to do the maths but consider if we (US citizens) lived someplace with socialized medicine what the actual financial burden would have been over our working years to be paying the higher taxes associated with a socialized healthcare system. How does that compare with the higher costs we face - those of us with the luxury of contemplating years between employment with healthcare subsidies from our employer and medicare age? I suspect that it works out in our favor. We likely have more money due to the lower tax burdens in our working years that more than makes up for the increased costs during the 'gap' of post-employment to medicare age. I honestly don't know but it would be interesting to see the calculation.
It definitely doesn't work out for anyone retiring near full retirement age. US health care costs are that much more.
Consider that, best case, we (US citizens) pay 2x as much than any other country. From ages 22-42, we pay 2x while someone in the UK or France or Switzerland pays 1x. If we get subsidies to the tune of 1/2 of our premiums from 42-62, we'd pay 2x more (and the opportunity cost!). If we get full subsidies at 42, our payments would equal a total of 2x -- equivalent to other countries.
Yep. Turns out that between Medicare and Medicaid and VA and government employee insurance and whatever else, the US federal government spends more per capita on health care than other countries that have a single-payer system. Then those of us insured outside these systems have to pay more besides. Our prices are just that much higher.
I’m not sure what you are 2Xing. We pay 2x for what? We being individuals or the government?
Certainly the total spending from all sources is higher in the US compared to other countries. And our outcomes aren’t better. Some of that, I believe is because the US is at the forefront in medical research and pharmaceutical development. That carries a cost which is born by us here in the US and that other countries benefit from without the high cost of the R&D.
If you compare taxes in the US with someplace like the UK which has a nationalized health care system, and extrapolate all of your working years paying those much higher taxes, how does that opportunity cost - the loss of investment return from the money you were not able to save - offset the higher costs we pay in the US for our health insurance and out of pocket? As most of us know, compounding is a powerful force, and the loss of potential investment return over many years seems like it may well be significantly higher than the cost of expensive insurance in our later years.
Another factor to consider is the actual availability of treatment in the US compared to someplace like the UK. It is my understanding that for many procedures, such as knee replacement, there is a long wait time in places with nationalized systems. Here in the US, you can get something like that very quickly. My elderly mom, who is on medicare of course and also has supplemental insurance at a cost of ~$500/month has had multiple joint replacement surgeries among other things, all very quickly and conveniently.
There is also most likely a cultural issue at play, considering that such a high percentage of our healthcare spending is for care during the last year of life. If we could somehow address this issue, not by withholding care, but maybe by taking an approach that doesn’t necessarily default all the time to more care no matter what until the final seconds, perhaps we could get some of that under control.
Ultimately I believe that our best hope is for technology to dramatically reduce costs. Not only will this become necessary from a fiscal standpoint but we are also burning out our doctors and nurses at an unsustainable rate. We won’t have enough medical professionals to conduct business as usual and technology- like telemedicine and advanced sensors - will have to fill the gap.