-
I found a really good breakdown explaining this which I'll look for and post. iirc the main thing is actually the admin burden of the system. As an after thought I wondered if had almost turned into a Keynesian system of sorts.
The US system is nuts though, and so deeply scewed against the less well off. From my limited experience if you've got decent healthcare you get much better service than the NHS. However, it's not cheap and the bewildering choice you have is a double edged sword. There is clearly over treatment - which no doubt adds to the cost. Pretty sure there was an issue with Virgin doing this a while back.
EDIT: Here is is: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/080615/6-reasons-healthcare-so-expensive-us.asp 25% is related to admin.
hugo7-
The US system is nuts though, and so deeply scewed against the less well off. From my limited experience if you've got decent healthcare you get much better service than the NHS.
I disagree, under the highly privatised systems if you can afford it you get more healthcare but not better healthcare. As your link shows the US system is full of rip offs. People with top rate insurance get massive over treatment, with unnecessary and often damaging interventions or over subscription of drugs. The USA spends double per person than we do but health outcomes are markedly lower, for example their life expectancy is 2-3 years lower than ours.
This graph from OECD illustrates the difference in outcomes. I don't know why the UK data has flat lined at the high end. My guess it is the effect of increasing privatisation via PFI under Labour, 're-organisation' under Andrew Lansley and marketisation under Hunt.
Charlie_L
Why does the US spend more per capita on health care than every other country, then? Surely they should be rolling in these savings. The US government actually spends more the Canadian government. The US government is effectively subsidizing a for-profit system at a cost higher than a nationalised system.