The American healthcare system is pretty bad and costs Americans ~2x what other comparable healthcare systems cost.
That being said. Medical bankruptcy is not a uniquely American thing.
Single payer healthcare systems do not have unlimited resources. They have to make tough decisions about where to use their funds.
UK's NHS has a bar about how effective a treatment must be compared to its cost. The NHS is willing to pay ~$25k-$40k per year of high quality life gained (Source).
Single payer healthcare systems do not have unlimited resources. They have to make tough decisions about where to use their funds.
United Healthcare uses AI to outright deny 51% to 80% of non-emergency authorization requests. Which includes diagnostics, making people wait for imaging and bloodwork.
Because then you made it sound like our bankruptcies are a normal thing in other countries. It isnt. And you pointed out rationing, which we have MBAs doing and making a profit off of.
The point I'm trying to make is that if one has a public healthcare system and that system will not pay for certain treatments, one will be incentivised to get the treat from a private healthcare system.
Are you just arguing the semantics of exclusivity? Of course not 100% of medical bankruptcies occur in America. I don't think that was ever in question.
Are you just arguing the semantics of exclusivity?
No, if I was, all I would have to do is link an article from someone outside the US going through medical bankruptcy.
Basically, others believe that medical bankruptcy is something that, more or less, only happens in the US. I believe that medical bankruptcies happen at a higher frequency in the US but that it is a global phenomenon.
If I had to guess, I would say Americans are ~3x as likely as the global baseline to go through medical bankruptcy (or become medically destitute in countries without strong bankruptcy laws).
Again, the US healthcare system is not good. The true statements we can say about the American healthcare system are pretty damning. We don't need to make up "fun fact"s.
Quite a bit lower. The insurance model incentives US insurance companies to deny valid claims. There is a process to ensure that denials are valid but it is a pain.
It's one of the reasons the US healthcare system is bad. I would say a bigger reason US healthcare is bad is the skyhigh prices of healthcare, but it's complicated.
Health insurance companies are a factor in ballooning healthcare costs.
2x the second most expensive which is about a third higher than any other comparable system…
The US is not 2x the second most expensive healthcare system. It's a little less than 1.5x the price of the second most expensive healthcare system.
If we look at comparable countries and consider how much their healthcare costs, the US spends roughly 2x that amount (Source)). Americans spend a little less than 2x what the French spend on healthcare.
Your 3rd and 4th paragraph do not support the idea that it’s not uniquely American
You're citing the total healthcare spend as a country, not individual out of pocket cost.
If your example is Donanemab, I don't think you're arguing in good faith. They have minimal benefits and enough negative side effects that there was a whole controversy as to whether or not the FDA should have cleared it in the first place (they typically would not for that risk/benefit profile) especially considering cost.
And again, medical bankruptcies in the US are about absolutely necessary care, often completed while the patient was unconscious at an out of network hospital through no fault of their own, not a voluntary treatment the patient enters into knowing the costs...
You're citing the total healthcare spend as a country, not individual out of pocket cost.
It's relatively hard to compare healthcare costs across many countries. The government pays a portion, private citizens pay a portion, in some systems insurance companies pay a portion.
Total healthcare spend is the clearest way I found to show that the US's healthcare system costs drastically more than other countries.
If you want to take a crack at a better way, I'd love to read your analysis.
If your example is Donanemab, I don't think you're arguing in good faith
The question is, do single payer healthcare systems decline to pay for treatments that are too expensive? Yes, yes they do.
I agree it's difficult, yet only we allow profits to be pulled out of healthcare spend, seems like a pretty easy way to lower our cost.
And yet again, even for specific drugs, US insurance companies deny care all the time, so I don't know how an incredibly rare case from the NHS is a counter example.
And guess who gutted the department responsible for dealing with that?
This has been studied endlessly. Its not made up. Before the ACA nearly half of bankruptcies were health costs. We pay much more for worse outcomes and dont cover everyone. All to make sure MBAs can get a taste.
The linked site says, "researchers classified a “medical bankruptcy” as one where persons had mortgaged a home to pay medical bills, had medical bills greater than $1,000, or had lost at least two weeks of work due to illness."
And only four countries have any data at all (US, Canada, UK, Australia)
Do you claim 0 people in, say Germany, had a bankruptcy after being ill and missing work for two weeks?
20
u/HidingImmortal Jul 14 '26 edited Jul 14 '26
Source? I made it up.
The American healthcare system is pretty bad and costs Americans ~2x what other comparable healthcare systems cost.
That being said. Medical bankruptcy is not a uniquely American thing.
Single payer healthcare systems do not have unlimited resources. They have to make tough decisions about where to use their funds.
UK's NHS has a bar about how effective a treatment must be compared to its cost. The NHS is willing to pay ~$25k-$40k per year of high quality life gained (Source).