Well, in general, healthcare costs per capita have been shooting up pretty fast even in places with "free" healthcare like Canada (I think it's around 10% of GDP here now?). It's just that they've been massively outpacing inflation in the US ever since the 70s, whereas before American healthcare was no more expensive (and usually better in quality).
Do you actually not understand that healthcare gets more expensive as more types of treatment are developed?
Yes, but then the costs
should generally tend to go down as the treatments become more common, manufacture becomes easier, etc. This is what happens, in, well, every single other industry as technological advances are made.
Also, if the Americans change their system too much, rich people from Europe, Canada, etc wouldn't be able to go there when they need treatment, so instead of using their money to go to American hospitals they'd be using their influence to bump themselves up the waiting list at home, which is hardly a good thing for anyone involved.
I do not know a single European who would even consider going to America to get treatment - it may happen in a select few cases where a world-class specialist works in the US, but a) that happens the other way around too and b) it has nothing to do with your friggin health care system. You just pulled a Michelle Bachmann there! The thing the US healthcare system is generally known for in Europe is people selling their houses to afford life-saving surgery and ambulances cruising a city for hours, not being taken by any hospital, because the person in it is uninsured.
/rant, but that was too [redacted].
For all of the American system's flaws, the last point actually doesn't happen, as hospitals are obligated by law to take patients regardless of ability to pay (how much they pay after is a different story). I suppose I can't speak for Europe, but those in Canada with lots of money often head south for treatment, even when it isn't strictly necessary. Hell, the former
premier of Newfoundland did that once.
The interesting thing is that, in the US, costs have tended to increase drastically whenever it moves closer towards a socialized or semi-socialized system
Please substantiate your extremely dubious proposition or retract it.
Your argument is invalid the instant it starts comparing "private insurance" costs to Medicare and Medicaid, when, in fact, private insurance is so incredibly controlled through coverage mandates (even ignoring the ACA) and statewide restrictions that it has exactly the same problems. Compare the graph provided earlier with this:
and it's pretty clear that the bulk of American healthcare expense increases occurred
after out of pocket payment began to fall, in short, when healthcare started to become more "socialized". I can go into more detail about what specific issues the system has, but I've had this argument so many times that I'd rather not explain every little problem with the American system.
As I said, fringe cases that won't be touched by the recent improvements - look at GJ's original claims: He claims that this is a large issue that will lead to rich people getting worse treatment and the health care systems of other countries degrading.
No. My argument is that, if America adopts a system similar to those of Canada or the UK (so single tiered or two tiered, respectively), then the rich people who would otherwise go there, reducing the strain on our systems, would instead stick around to cut ahead in line for treatment at home.
I'll bring up another point, though, since you mentioned it; The US is, because of it's incredibly messed up system, the place where pharmaceutical companies actually make most of their money, allowing them to sell at fairly small profit margins elsewhere. Mind, they're able to make such huge profits in America through a mixture of FDA protection, patent law, medical equipment subsidies, and abuse of the insurance payment system, but they still rely on American sales to come out ahead. In the event America's system became similar to those of other countries, those profits would no longer exist, so the pharmaceutical companies would jack up prices to compensate for the gigantic loss in revenue. So America's messed up, broken system indirectly allows for the not-quite broken systems of other countries to function by indirectly paying for their drugs.
I do not know a single European who would even consider going to America to get treatment
Why would these? Not even Canadians would want to pay way more for treatment they can get faster at home.
It's a myth that arrived because conservatives didn't fact check things that sounded right to their gut. No basis in truth.
Note how I didn't say "all us poor Canadians want to go to America for treatment", I specifically said "rich people". Obviously that is a far smaller subset of Canadians, and smaller still when you consider that the wealthy tend to require treatment less often (what with being more likely to live healthier lives and all). Try again.
Basically, the amount of [Canadian] people that go to America for healthcare is negligible. And of those who DO, it's mostly because they were already there! No reason to go back home to get treatment and ruin your vacation or whatever.
Even when treatment in an American hospital was paid for by the health-care system, Canadians still chose to use the Canadian hospital.
As for cost, it's easier to negotiate a low price when you're an entire country, rather than a single person or even insurance company. Prices everywhere are going up, sure, but they're going up slower in public-health-care countries. 
It's less "public health countries are better are keeping costs down", its more "none of the present systems are good at keeping costs down, but America's is positively terrible at it and makes the rest look good".
Poll
7 (6.5%)
Author
Topic: Bay12 Election Night Watch Party (Read 838979 times)