Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The US's healthcare system is so bleak because we quite literally fund healthcare for the rest of the planet. Taxpayers in the US get access to the best treatment decades earlier if they're rich enough. Prices are increased on US citizens to account for the strong arming other governments do to get prices lower for their citizens. If the pharma companies couldn't do this, for example, they'd refuse to negotiate with other countries. A microcosm of this behavior is medicare here is the US. Yes, the US taxpayers even have to be charitable to them.

IMO, if the US decided to actually help its citizens every country the average progressive considers "great at healthcare" would likely implode under the sudden increase in cost. The cost of medication alone would likely nearly bankrupt several governments. Imagine if the price of insulin, almost completely funded by US citizens paying absurd prices, went up to its US price.

Much like with defense, the US taxpayer is the hero of the rest of the world's healthcare. Without US tax cattle the rest of the world would not be as nice as it is. It's just like when prices go up at your favorite store due to theft. The US is punished by insurance companies because other countries refuse to pay more.



Almost everything you have said here is untrue. Pharma companies still make profits in other countries, they just make much more profit in the US. Much of medical research is in fact funded by the government to begin with.

By removing the for-profit system, you would actually be removing rampant rent-seeking on something that should be a human right.

> Imagine if the price of insulin, almost completely funded by US citizens paying absurd prices, went up to its US price.

A very strange example to select, considering it was first discovered by Canadians and the patent was later sold for $1. US citizens are certainly not "subsidizing" insulin elsewhere.


Sure bud. What is it about HN'ers talking with such confidence they legitimately have no idea what they're even talking about? I googled it for you, and gave you two sources are probably amicable towards - there are THOUSANDS more[0][1]. It's exhausting that everyone here talks like they are an expert at everything. I thought I left that when I came here from reddit.

[0] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/do-other-countries-pigg...

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/11/29/us-health...


The example you selected with insulin does not support your argument.

Of course, anyone can do a google search and find some opinion pieces confirming their world view, that doesn't make it true.

The post article in particular just looks at the total revenue and essentially says "look how big it is compared to other countries, we must be subsidizing them". But this just justifies the extreme profit-seeking already in the sector, it's not an argument that it's necessary for innovation.


This doesn't come close to supporting your claim that (most of?) the entire healthcare cost gap is due to subsidizing innovation, for the reasons I described in my other comment. (ie: Drugs are only ~10% of our healthcare costs.)

Even your own source [1] contradicts the idea that high costs are inevitably caused by this subsidization:

> Why doesn’t competition bring U.S. health-care prices down? The answer: America’s stagnant third-party payment system allows hospitals and doctors to avoid competing on price.


This could only be true if the majority of the healthcare spending diff came from payments to pharma/health dev cos, right? Do you know whether that's the case?

If we're paying more for nurse salaries, hospital administration, insurance company bureaucracy, and ineffective procedures near end-of-life with low probability of success, it's unlikely the cost diff is mainly due to "subsidizing innovation."




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: