- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- health
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- health
American taxpayers footed the bill for at least $1.8 trillion in federal and state health care expenditures in 2022 — about 41% of the nearly $4.5 trillion in both public and private health care spending the U.S. recorded last year, according to the annual report released last week by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
On top of that $1.8 trillion, third-party programs, which are often government-funded, and public health programs accounted for another $600 billion in spending.
This means the U.S. government spent more on health care last year than the governments of Germany, the U.K., Italy, Spain, Austria, and France combined spent to provide universal health care coverage to the whole of their population (335 million in total), which is comparable in size to the U.S. population of 331 million.
Between direct public spending and compulsory, tax-driven insurance programs, Germany spent about $380 billion in health care in 2022; France spent around $300 billion, and so did the U.K.; Italy, $147 billion; Spain, $105 billion; and Austria, $43 billion. The total, $1.2 trillion, is about two-thirds of what the U.S. government spent without offering all of its citizens the option of forgoing private insurance.
For those who are interested, the population of those countries combined is roughly the same as the US: 331,137,369 compared to 339,996,563 for the US.
I came here to ask this; an argument commonly made by proponents of the US system is that the population sizes are different.
These stats are easy to find. The US spends a much higher percentage of its GDP on health care (16.6%) than anyone else. The difference is bigger than the entire US military budget. If the US cut its health care spending to the level of France (12.1%) or Germany (12.7%), it could more than double its military spending.
It terms of actual resources, the difference is even bigger, as US-Americans work much more than Europeans. I’m not sure what for.
ETA: At the same time, the US has a younger population, which should not really need as much care.
You mean to tell me we can have better healthcare and more guns, and save money doing it?
Are you running for president?
Actually proposing that would be political suicide.
Only in a backward country like the US it would.
Plenty of Americans are against their best interests.
Which shouldn’t go ignored.
But the cost of the US Healthcare generally shouldn’t be ignored either. And it seems to be by a good majority of our politicians.
IMHO, our population should give us MORE leverage to get cost reductions but it’s just not going to happen. We need a severe overhaul of our healthcare system and the people who benefit from our current system have too much power and influence.
It should though because economy of scale works to make things cheaper, not more expensive. They’re literally ignoring basic economics to make that argument.
Not always, and not that I disagree with your point either. The US healthcare system is so over bloated with administration that it’s likely experiencing diseconomies of scale instead
Well that’s the issue. We don’t have a single system. We have an industry. I also love how that link completely dodges the motivation to raise prices purely for profit. But even with that, we already know the legitimate cost problem is due to multiple middle man companies that provide no value and just take money. And the more care they deny, the more money they make. So it’s a combination of problems. We have to pay them enough for them to employ people to find reasons to deny care.
Thanks for clearing that up. The headline is badly written and needs that information.