• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why is America spending more on healthcare per capita than Denmark?

Masterhawk

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2016
Messages
1,908
Reaction score
489
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
As we all know, the US does not have universal healthcare; rather it has healthcare companies. Denmark on the other hand does have universal healthcare and here's the best part: it spends less per capita than the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita

The US spends the most per capita when it comes to healthcare, surpassing even countries which have universal healthcare.

So here's the question: What is the extra money going to specifically?
 
The poor. AKA the uninsured.

You cannot have both a welfare state and open borders.
 
As we all know, the US does not have universal healthcare; rather it has healthcare companies. Denmark on the other hand does have universal healthcare and here's the best part: it spends less per capita than the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita

The US spends the most per capita when it comes to healthcare, surpassing even countries which have universal healthcare.

So here's the question: What is the extra money going to specifically?

Denmark taxes.PNG
 
As we all know, the US does not have universal healthcare; rather it has healthcare companies. Denmark on the other hand does have universal healthcare and here's the best part: it spends less per capita than the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita

The US spends the most per capita when it comes to healthcare, surpassing even countries which have universal healthcare.

So here's the question: What is the extra money going to specifically?

According to my wife's(the doctor) ranting,it's because of the health insurance industry and liberals.
 
Cancer cost me tens of thousands of dollars (certain treatments wasn't covered by my insurance),and I am rich.I can't imagine how rough it is for the poor.

i'm sorry to hear this. hope that you are doing better now.
 
i'm sorry to hear this. hope that you are doing better now.

It was a year ago and I feel great.
Even down to my preferential weight (obesity is a common occurrence in the restaurant business).

It was my wife the oncologist who took care of me.
I have to admit,it was rough.She did the surgery on me and had to remove a foot and a half of colon,my entire spleen,half my pancreas,and part of my abdominal wall.
She told me I actually died twice on the table.
It was her love and skill that brought me back.
 
America spends more per capita than everybody, not just Denmark.

health%20care%20spending.jpeg
 
The major difference is that the US "system" is entirely market oriented. Not only is it for profit throughout, it also has an insurance middleman who takes profit too.

Spending on health broadly reflects life expectancy around the world, except for one country.

original.jpg
 
As we all know, the US does not have universal healthcare; rather it has healthcare companies. Denmark on the other hand does have universal healthcare and here's the best part: it spends less per capita than the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita

The US spends the most per capita when it comes to healthcare, surpassing even countries which have universal healthcare.

So here's the question: What is the extra money going to specifically?



Any more questions?
 
It was a year ago and I feel great.
Even down to my preferential weight (obesity is a common occurrence in the restaurant business).

It was my wife the oncologist who took care of me.
I have to admit,it was rough.She did the surgery on me and had to remove a foot and a half of colon,my entire spleen,half my pancreas,and part of my abdominal wall.
She told me I actually died twice on the table.
It was her love and skill that brought me back.

glad to hear that you are ok. recovering from that in a year is quite an accomplishment.

did your wife have any issues with doing the surgery? i can only imagine how stressful something like that would be. kudos to her for doing such a good job.
 
glad to hear that you are ok. recovering from that in a year is quite an accomplishment.

did your wife have any issues with doing the surgery? i can only imagine how stressful something like that would be. kudos to her for doing such a good job.

I didn't trust anyone but her to take care of me and she wouldn't have had it any other way.
She went through uterine cancer in her twenties and understood what I was going through.
 
According to my wife's(the doctor) ranting,it's because of the health insurance industry and liberals.

Well, I don't know if I'd say it's the health insurance companies, their profit margin isn't huge. The cost of healthcare of itself is expensive, not to mention pharmaceuticals.
 
Well, I don't know if I'd say it's the health insurance companies, their profit margin isn't huge. The cost of healthcare of itself is expensive, not to mention pharmaceuticals.

I agree,but I know better than trying to tell that to the missus.
 
Any more questions?

we both know that denmark has high taxes but the US is outspending denmark in healthcare, that's what I'm saying. Denmark is spending less per capita in healthcare than the US. If you look at any chart, you will find that America (usually) outspends other developed countries (even though it doesn't have universal healthcare) every year (per capita). If this country transfers to a single healthcare system like dennmark and france and doesn't give subsidies to healcare companies, I believe that it will not only save lives but also money.
 
Well, I don't know if I'd say it's the health insurance companies, their profit margin isn't huge. The cost of healthcare of itself is expensive, not to mention pharmaceuticals.

The fact that they are there at all means you have to add in their operating cost as well as their profit margin, and the extra admin incurred by the hospitals/Dr's to deal with all the "competing" companies, and their different systems.

But it's not simple cost, either.

CrhGVBnXEAABol2.jpg:large
 
we both know that denmark has high taxes but the US is outspending denmark in healthcare, that's what I'm saying. Denmark is spending less per capita in healthcare than the US. If you look at any chart, you will find that America (usually) outspends other developed countries (even though it doesn't have universal healthcare) every year (per capita). If this country transfers to a single healthcare system like dennmark and france and doesn't give subsidies to healcare companies, I believe that it will not only save lives but also money.

and you would be largely wrong about that.

Here is why a lot of this "per capita" when it comes to other countries is BS.

1. Our healthcare costs include a lot of costs that are taken out of the equation for other countries.

For example.. our educational costs to doctors is born by out healthcare system. When you go to the doctor.. you are paying his education cost in what you are charged.

In other countries.. education of their doctors is public.. so it ends up in the public education cost.. but not on "healthcare" cost.

Another example is retirement costs. for example.. our country has people that retire after 65.. when our social security kicks in.. and many continue to work after that. Other countries have more generation retirement systems.. for example France has a system where if you work in a hard physical labor job.. you can retire at 55.

What that means is.. a worker in America working a hard physical labor job.. works 10 years or more than someone working the same job in france. Which means they will incur more healthcare costs (cost of 10 years of hard labor).

In france.. that cost is shifted toward having that person retiring earlier.. and ends up in another column than "healthcare".

another example is Malpractice costs. In America.. what you are charged reflects the cost of malpractice insurance...

In other countries.. there is often a public managed malpractice system that manages malpractice. Again.. shifting costs out of the healthcare column.

2. Then there are the demographic differences. americans work longer, work harder, take less vacations, have more stress, have more obesity, have more sedentary lifestyles... than most countries and this leads to higher healthcare costs

3. Then there is the fact that americans subsidize healthcare for much of the world. WE do a high percentage of the worlds research.. and that cost is born by US consumers. Once those technologies are proven and made cheaper.. that's when they are approved for us in those countries.

That's just to name a few differences that account for the difference.


Now.. MancSkippers graph shows my point well.

You and many others assume that the difference of cost is due to having a different healthcare system,

However.. if you look at Mancskippers graph.. you will see that other countries.. with SIMILAR SYSTEMS.. have widely varying costs as well.
 
For example.. our educational costs to doctors is born by out healthcare system. When you go to the doctor.. you are paying his education cost in what you are charged.

In other countries.. education of their doctors is public.. so it ends up in the public education cost.. but not on "healthcare" cost.

The Condition of Education - Elementary and Secondary Education - Finance - Education Expenditures by Country - Indicator May (2016) The US spends more on education per capita than most developed countries.
What that means is.. a worker in America working a hard physical labor job.. works 10 years or more than someone working the same job in france. Which means they will incur more healthcare costs (cost of 10 years of hard labor).

although accidents do happen, injuries which require going to the hospital rarely happen to a person. On the other hand, sickness which requires going to a doctor happens regardless of being at work or retired.

Then there is the fact that americans subsidize healthcare for much of the world..
foreign aid spending only consists of 1% of government expenditure

WE do a high percentage of the worlds research.. and that cost is born by US consumers
science is also at 1%
 

Yep.. so?

the fact still remains that European countries offer "free public education" to their physicians and that pushes money out the healthcare column and into their education column.

although accidents do happen, injuries which require going to the hospital rarely happen to a person. On the other hand, sickness which requires going to a doctor happens regardless of being at work or retired.

Yeah no.
Overexertion injuries are among the most costly and disabling work-related injuries in the United States. According to the 2007 Liberty Mutual Workplace Safety Index, overexertion injuries were responsible for $12.7 billion in direct costs to U.S. employers in 2005 – more than any other type of injury.

That's overexertion.. which occurs more often as we age.

Then there is repetitive use injuries:

A form of overuse injury caused by repeating the same motions for hours on end over extended periods of time, RSI is often associated with computer keyboard work. It's not a new disease, however. Hand and arm problems associated with repetitive tasks first appeared in world medical literature in the 17th century with reports of "milkmaids' arm."

In the United States, blue-collar workers reported the first cases of RSI in 1912, when telegraph operators developed a mysterious ailment known as "telegraphists' cramp." Other workers reported such diseases as "washerwoman's thumb" and "glass arm," the latter a painful condition afflicting Morse Code operators during World War I. Assembly line workers, seamstresses, meat packers, and construction workers were later diagnosed with repetitive motion injuries as well.

Manufacturing workers, in fact, make up the lion's share of RSI or "repeated trauma" cases reported to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But over the last 25 years, as computer use has exploded, there's been a flood of such injuries among computer users as well.

In many offices across the country, employees are donning arm splints, missing work because of crippling pain, and even undergoing surgery due to injuries linked to repetitive keyboard work.

One government study puts the cost of RSI between $17 billion and $20 billion a year. [/QUOTE

The older a person is.. and the more time on the job the risk of a repetitive injury goes up.

foreign aid spending only consists of 1% of government expenditure

Not foreign aid.

U.S. consumers are in fact subsidizing other countries’ public health systems, at least with respect to drug pricing,” Jacob Sherkow, an associate professor at New York Law School, said.

These price discrepancies and their implications are well known throughout the industry but rarely discussed outside of it. Pharmaceutical companies have long defended the high price of drugs as necessary to pay for the research and development of new drugs, but the differences in pricing essentially means that consumers in the U.S. are contributing more than those in other countries. The U.S. accounted for 46 percent of global life sciences research and development--the vast majority of which is in biopharmaceuticals--according to the December 2013 issue of R&D Magazine.

“The U.S. is the global leader in biomedical innovation,” Mark Grayson, a spokesman for PhRMA, a pharmaceutical industry trade group that represents many of the world’s biggest drug companies, said in an email. “The research is for medicines that will be sold in the U.S. but obviously will be sold around the world,” he added.

International Business Times - Business News, Technology, Politics


And not just pharma.. all sorts of biotechnology as well. Its not "government" subsidy.. its subsidized by US consumers in the healthcare system.

A US company develops a new medical device or procedure. Its introduced into the US and its at a high cost. Which pays back the company for all the research and testing that was done. then.. when the procedure is fully developed, is more massed produced and is now cheaper.. European countries then allow this procedure into their system at a substantial decrease.
 
and you would be largely wrong about that.

Here is why a lot of this "per capita" when it comes to other countries is BS.

1. Our healthcare costs include a lot of costs that are taken out of the equation for other countries.

For example.. our educational costs to doctors is born by out healthcare system. When you go to the doctor.. you are paying his education cost in what you are charged.

In other countries.. education of their doctors is public.. so it ends up in the public education cost.. but not on "healthcare" cost.

Another example is retirement costs. for example.. our country has people that retire after 65.. when our social security kicks in.. and many continue to work after that. Other countries have more generation retirement systems.. for example France has a system where if you work in a hard physical labor job.. you can retire at 55.

What that means is.. a worker in America working a hard physical labor job.. works 10 years or more than someone working the same job in france. Which means they will incur more healthcare costs (cost of 10 years of hard labor).

In france.. that cost is shifted toward having that person retiring earlier.. and ends up in another column than "healthcare".

another example is Malpractice costs. In America.. what you are charged reflects the cost of malpractice insurance...

In other countries.. there is often a public managed malpractice system that manages malpractice. Again.. shifting costs out of the healthcare column.

2. Then there are the demographic differences. americans work longer, work harder, take less vacations, have more stress, have more obesity, have more sedentary lifestyles... than most countries and this leads to higher healthcare costs

3. Then there is the fact that americans subsidize healthcare for much of the world. WE do a high percentage of the worlds research.. and that cost is born by US consumers. Once those technologies are proven and made cheaper.. that's when they are approved for us in those countries.

That's just to name a few differences that account for the difference.


Now.. MancSkippers graph shows my point well.

You and many others assume that the difference of cost is due to having a different healthcare system,

However.. if you look at Mancskippers graph.. you will see that other countries.. with SIMILAR SYSTEMS.. have widely varying costs as well.

Hmm, according to this article, it's because doctors have higher wages in the US than in the rest of the developed world and health services (medicine, surgery, and body scans) are more expensive

US Spends More on Health Care Than Other High-Income Nations But Has Lower Life Expectancy, Worse Health - The Commonwealth Fund

So the obvious solution is to lower prices down to european level.
 
Look, look at all the neocons and libtards stretch and contort themselves to deny the obvious: "privatized" systems for delivering goods or services are, in the practicality of real life, woefully inefficient and intentionally under-capacity to make a particular good or service -- health care in this case -- affordable and available to everyone.

For every dollar that goes into a health care premium, about 32 cents goes to 'administrative overhead' -- paying for the offices, staff, executives and shareholders. The remaining 68 cents on the dollar goes to actually pay for medical treatment for their paying customers.

By contrast, for every dollar that goes into Medicare or Medicaid, about 3 cents goes to 'administrative overhead' and 97 cents goes to actually paying for medical procedures.

Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of economics knows what "supply and demand" is, and knows the ideal capitalist will always alter supply/production to achieve optimal profit for themselves. That is the first priority of a capitalist -- not actually delivering the good or service, certainly not making it available or affordable to everyone; in fact attempting to do so is considered a failure to a business owner.

The effect of this has been a travesty on the United States, and that's not hyperbole. Prior to the passage of the Affordable Care Act, the Harvard School of Medicine conducted a careful research study on the effects of maintaining the private health care system we have. Analyzing statistics, they determined some 32,000 American citizens died every year from medically preventable causes as a result of lack of access to basic, regular health care -- no regular doctor to catch things before they require an ER visit by which point, too many times, it is too late.

That's 32,000 citizens every single year, or a 9/11 death toll every 35 days.

But the country wasn't fooled by such realities; all the focus and hype on "protecting Americans" is bombing places we accused of harboring al-Qaeda regardless of whether they actually did, and doing nothing until the ACA to try and stem the tide of deaths by capitalism killing far more Americans than bin Laden could ever dream of achieving.
 
Back
Top Bottom