[mbostleman]

So what is the solution? More than 42% went all in with the constraint being their personal assets. If that constraint was lifted, then what would the next constraint be? Obviously the additional assets would come from other people, and probably not voluntarily (which is a different issue), but what would be the limiting factor then? Also, I assume the new pool of assets would be available not just to the 42% that were willing to put all of their own in but to the remaining 58% as well. The US may be a nation of relatively high resources, but they aren't infinite. What do the rules look like for this in other nations?

[shereadsthenews]

How about if we have a single entity who pays doctors and hospitals fair and reasonable rates, we fire hundreds of thousands of bureaucrats we don't need, and we fund it all out of general revenues, saving roughly 2 trillion dollars per year, while at the same time improving life expectancy and other health outcomes?

[mbostleman]

For sure, there's all kinds of ways to make money go further. But there still has to be a rule for a constraint.

[news_to_me]

Socialist!! /s

[ergothus]

You're assuming that the costs are fixed, and that the only issue is when we decide to stop spending.

An alternative is that the costs AREN'T fixed - that a significant portion of the money involved goes to costs that aren't actually costs of the heath care itself. This could be insurance overhead (all the people to manage the paperwork to get approval for the work ultimately adds to bill I have to pay), inflated costs (for those without insurance, or dealing with things insurance won't/has stopped covering, the habit of hospitals to raise their base rates so they can then offer a discount to insurance companies hits them full on), market weaknesses (A lot has been written about how non-transparent the market is, meaning it's basically impossible to shop for good care at a good price), etc.

If a new splanch transplant (made up numbers here) ultimately costs $10,000 in the UK and $100,000 in the US (regardless of whether that is paid directly by me or indirectly via taxes), then the issue is different than what you've highlighted.

[Joe-Z]

>What do the rules look like for this in other nations?

In Austria we pay a "Sozialversicherungsbeitrag"/social security with each month's pay. Your employer also chips in part of it. I don't even know how much it is percent-wise.

It is really not that hard. You just go the doctor / hospital when you NEED it. Because that's the important thing: health care is a need, nobody likes being sick or injured and having a system where people end up bankrupt to pay for their medical bills ist just stupid.

No matter the philosophical arguments against taxes and state-power, it's cruel and stupid and it's astonishing that a country that considers itself "the greatest nation" is actually run like this in the 21st century.

[mbostleman]

Ok, but how does this relate to the problem in this post. If I get cancer in Austria, do I spend all my money first and when that's gone, how much more is spent? Or do I only spend some of my money first (or maybe none), but still, how much gets spent on me - what constrains it?

[metalliqaz]

Death, the next constraint would be death. If the patient doesn't get better, they don't just keep piling up bills forever, eventually the Cancer kills them.

[peteey]

The socialization of the insurance market puts the citizens paying at the mercy of the healthcare industry.

Wouldn't it make more sense to socialize the healthcare industry itself? Our tax dollars pay for much of the education and hospitals. Are we entitled to ownership?