[vineyardmike]

You can't genuinely believe that the reason that the 65+yo group costs more is the social safety net?

As you get older, you start to experience more adverse health affects. You start to need medical attention more. Especially if you've been denied healthcare for the first 65 years.

> I really think people underestimate just how generous (high cost) the "social safety net" is, and have a grass-is-greener view towards other countries healthcare systems for people currently working.

Well I think you misrepresent that greener grass is greener. Other countries literally live longer and healthier when they have socialized healthcare. It's a pretty easy metric to track, and pretty straightforward. Do you want the general population to live longer? Do you want the general population to be healthier? Do you want the general population to be saddled with crippling medical debt? Sometimes the grass is greener. And we have the data to prove it.

In the link you shared, other social-safety-net countries had lower spend per capita. They have a better social safety net. So how can that be the issue?

At least you're honest that you own a health-insurance business and you're biased. A single-payer system would destroy your income, and I guess that's pretty scary, so it's in your best interest to fear-monger.

[mgh95]

> As you get older, you start to experience more adverse health affects. You start to need medical attention more. Especially if you've been denied healthcare for the first 65 years.

Sort of: as you get older, time catches up to you. In the USA for, heart disease kills 1015/100k for both genders (see: https://usafacts.org/articles/what-are-the-top-causes-of-dea... in Germany, it is just 673/100k for just men alone. We have an obesity problem, not a healthcare problem, when it comes to life expectancy.

> Well I think you misrepresent that greener grass is greener. Other countries literally live longer and healthier when they have socialized healthcare. It's a pretty easy metric to track, and pretty straightforward. Do you want the general population to live longer? Do you want the general population to be healthier? Do you want the general population to be saddled with crippling medical debt? Sometimes the grass is greener. And we have the data to prove it.

The question here is QALYS. We quite literally avoid this discussion in the US at all (see this: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19738253/). The issue isn't that we disagree about the issues: it's that the issues are not addressed and Americans pretty much always say "spend more".

Europe has already begun rationing, by the way (see this: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1831659/#:~:text=Be....) It's not as though it doesn't already occur; we simply choose to blame insurance companies instead of a national system.

> In the link you shared, other social-safety-net countries had lower spend per capita. They have a better social safety net. So how can that be the issue?

Healthier populations. Americans make awful health choices.

> At least you're honest that you own a health-insurance business and you're biased. A single-payer system would destroy your income, and I guess that's pretty scary, so it's in your best interest to fear-monger.

Not really. Margin shifts along value chains; it's rarely destroyed. All that would happen is the profits would shift to another location. Then the game becomes how to get there.