American taxpayers footed the bill for at least $1.8 trillion in federal and state health care expenditures in 2022 — about 41% of the nearly $4.5 trillion in both public and private health care spending the U.S. recorded last year, according to the annual report released last week by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

On top of that $1.8 trillion, third-party programs, which are often government-funded, and public health programs accounted for another $600 billion in spending.

This means the U.S. government spent more on health care last year than the governments of Germany, the U.K., Italy, Spain, Austria, and France combined spent to provide universal health care coverage to the whole of their population (335 million in total), which is comparable in size to the U.S. population of 331 million.

Between direct public spending and compulsory, tax-driven insurance programs, Germany spent about $380 billion in health care in 2022; France spent around $300 billion, and so did the U.K.; Italy, $147 billion; Spain, $105 billion; and Austria, $43 billion. The total, $1.2 trillion, is about two-thirds of what the U.S. government spent without offering all of its citizens the option of forgoing private insurance.

  • no banana@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    176
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    People talking about dismantling the military to pay for health care distract themselves from the fact that the health care system already holds all the money that is needed for single payer health-care. Which is what the people making money off this system want. They want people to blame the military, because that doesn’t solve shit.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        37
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        Dismantle? No.

        Reform for efficiency? Yes.

        For example, the entire admin back end can be civil service. (Some of it already is) and contracting needs to go die in a dumpster fire. You’ve got at least 30,000 infantrymen sitting around doing nothing on any given day. Take a survey of their skills and start assigning additional duties. You can always fall back on contractors if you run out of grunts.

        Also, for the love of God stop maintaining an entire mechanized army. You don’t need to mount every soldier at the same time. Yes it’s awesome. But most infantry units aren’t going much of anywhere once they’re dug in.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            24
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            11 months ago

            Until superheroes or the Carebears become real we will need a military. The things I mentioned don’t touch the power projection debate on purpose. That’s a whole ideology thing that people need to be voting for and stuff. I’m taking about ways to save money whether we pull back or not.

          • CybranM@feddit.nu
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            You think Russia/Iran/China would just behave without the threat of US intervention?

            • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              Ironically, without the “bigger threat” of the USA, they’d likely be at odds against each other. China still wants Outer Manchuria back, a region it was forced to cede to Russia back in 1860. Iran wants to be the de facto power of the muslim world, but has to deal with many other muslim countries that don’t want it, plus Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan are countries that Russia would prefer to have control over.

              • CybranM@feddit.nu
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                Yeah there might be a struggle there for a bit but China would steamroll both of them and then what?

                • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  I doubt China would steamroll them. People thought Russia would steamroll Ukraine, it very clearly didn’t. Besides, China isn’t exactly a loved country, it has “allies” that would likely abandon them on the first opportunity and many countries that would love to see them getting kicked in the proverbial nuts.

                  Any militaristic action of China against any of those big targets would trigger a response from several countries. While everyone will talk peace, in reality a good portion would try to play the war up for as long as possible, to bleed both dry.

      • BarrelAgedBoredom@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Build some god damn trains, subways, and bus routes with the military money. Bing bang boom we’re an actual “first world” country now

    • SeaJ@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      11 months ago

      They also distract themselves from the fact that a single payer system would be cheaper so we could actually afford more military with one. No dismantling needed.

    • YeetPics@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      11 months ago

      They would move on to other amoral enterprises like cars/insurance/real estate/televangelism/etc

      • ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        I get the sentiment, but it actually would be a positive thing. Most people in these industries are there because the jobs were available and paid well, even if those jobs only existed to produce more unjustifiable profits for the bloated system.

        Remove the jobs, and those people might actually go on to play productive rather than parasitic roles in society.

    • Cowbee@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      By contributing to the building up of the productive forces. Fuck this stagnation bullshit, invest in infrastructure and urbanization, invest in clean energy, and automation. Cut out meaningless jobs.

    • SupraMario@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Yep, this is why I argue with people who say, we should raise taxes to fund it…no fuck that, we can afford it now already without having to raise taxes even a penny.

      • Synthead@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        We would save a significant amount of money. And private insurance almost always doesn’t provide good healthcare. Imagine no copays or deductables.

        • A Phlaming Phoenix@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          11 months ago

          Imagine not having to argue with a massive corporation about whether you should be able to take the medication your doctor told you to take.

          • jasondj@ttrpg.network
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            11 months ago

            Imagine not having to choose between taking your kid to the doctor for $300 and a sick note for sniffles or letting him tough it out and get marked truant.

        • whatwhatwutyut@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          I have to say, being on Medicaid through college showed just how true this is. Being able to put my health first, rather than worry about if I could afford a doctor visit (or an ER visit), was great. The peace of mind of knowing that I would pay $0 for ANYTHING medical lead to me putting my health first.

          The one potential charge you could get was for going to the ER for something deemed a “non-emergency.” Even then I didn’t worry about whether I could go to the ER after whiffing it off my longboard and smacking my head into the pavement because… well, the non-emergency charge was $8.

      • General_Effort@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        11 months ago

        This may not be a popular question, but: Would Americans be willing to pay less?

        No really. This would mean a lot of good jobs being cut. Yes, they are jobs that provide no benefit to the public (rather the opposite), but thinking about the big picture isn’t very American. Americans like to side with the little guy.

        It gets worse. It would mean a huge pay cut for doctors. They are way overpaid compared to doctors anywhere else. Would Americans side with themselves the people the government or those nice family doctors?

        • Yamainwitch@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          11 months ago

          First of all what? Typically the highest paid members of hospital staff of “Administrators” who have completely shifted health care into a for-profit business. If the government regulated them out of their jobs and there were price caps set in place instead of wasting hundreds of hours decoding billing and fighting insurance companies doctors would very likely make more. They would also be more likely to actually try to help you versus hit unrealistic patient exam quotas to try and extract as much money from insurance to benefit the administration staff. Hell new doctors in medical school are pretty much unpaid and forced to work hours that somehow circumvent labor laws. The whole medical industry needs to be overhauled. Getting rid of middle management would free up capital that could be properly reinvested into the hospital for better equipment, wages etc.

          • General_Effort@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            doctors would very likely make more

            I expect that’s politically the way to go; not that I know anything about that. You get rid of a few inefficiencies and pay off other stakeholders with most of the gains.

            The fact remains, if you want to lower health care costs to levels comparable to other countries, you have to lower all the costs to comparable levels, including doctor’s pay.

        • Chriswild@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          11 months ago

          Are you calling for profit insurance the little guy? I don’t know why people think doctors would be the ones taking the hit and not the for profit corporations.

          • General_Effort@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            No. I am asking if Americans would actually be willing to see cuts happen.

            To answer your implied question: Because corporations don’t consume. They don’t go on holidays, live in mansions, … There is nothing there which can take the hit.

            • Chriswild@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              Corporations do consume, go on holiday, live in mansions… The executives wouldn’t lower their standards or travel on their own dime.

              If you think for profit corporations don’t have excess then you must not live in the same reality.

        • RBWells@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          11 months ago

          BUT, small businesses would benefit, and entrepreneurs, if they didn’t have to worry about health insurance. Doctors offices costs would come down without a lot of complicated billing stuff to do. Billing specialists would lose their jobs. Of my circle of people - husband would lose his job unless it was a Germany style system, and two other people I know.

          If you want some sort of employment program, the medical system here is a shit way to go about it. Why not pay people to do something with a good impact on the land or the people?

          And again - universal, tax-paid coverage would favor small business, it’s easier to take a risk when it doesn’t mean you might go bankrupt from a medical issue.

        • LrdThndr@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          11 months ago

          This would mean a lot of good jobs being cut

          Oh, no! We eliminated useless positions that accomplish nothing but sucking the life out of the system. However will we go on?

        • eskimofry@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Americans like to side with the little guy

          As you americans tell it: That’s bullsh*t. I see you guys getting fucked everyday by corporate. It’s hard to believe this is the U.S that holds international power… it looks like a Circus on fire looking inside from the outside.

          • odelik@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            As somebody trapped in this circus, lemme tell you, I want the fuck out of this clown car.

    • andrew@radiation.party
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      Year over year my insurance at huge companies would get both worse and costlier. It was to the point that the insurance that was costing me $200/mo was literally just acting as a safeguard against something costing me $10,000- which would have financially ruined anybody at those jobs anyway

  • WhyDoYouPersist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    77
    ·
    11 months ago

    How timely! American here who just received a bill for scoping my sinuses by an ENT specialist: insurance covered $28 out of the $415 procedure. This is on top of the $70 copay I owe for the $195 office visit. So all accounting factored in, I owe $450 for what I thought was going to be $70.

    Because it was billed through insurance, the provider’s hands are tied in terms of further negotiation. I would bet if I had gone in as a cash patient, I’d be much better off.

    The icing on the cake is that the scoping procedure was non-conclusive.

    The US healthcare insurance system is the ultimate way to make money fast, for little effort. As long as you’re on the right side of it, that is.

    • _number8_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      55
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      copay is such a bullshit word, like i’m somehow equal partners with this trillion dollar corporation of ghouls

    • WeeSheep@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      The worst is that insurance companies “cover” things and that’s all they can say before anything is done. After, when billed, they can say “we cover 5% of the final bill. See? We covered it.” And we have no idea how much we will need to pay for standard necessary procedures.

  • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    62
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    For those who are interested, the population of those countries combined is roughly the same as the US: 331,137,369 compared to 339,996,563 for the US.

    • Altofaltception@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      I came here to ask this; an argument commonly made by proponents of the US system is that the population sizes are different.

      • General_Effort@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        These stats are easy to find. The US spends a much higher percentage of its GDP on health care (16.6%) than anyone else. The difference is bigger than the entire US military budget. If the US cut its health care spending to the level of France (12.1%) or Germany (12.7%), it could more than double its military spending.

        It terms of actual resources, the difference is even bigger, as US-Americans work much more than Europeans. I’m not sure what for.

        ETA: At the same time, the US has a younger population, which should not really need as much care.

      • CosmicTurtle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Which shouldn’t go ignored.

        But the cost of the US Healthcare generally shouldn’t be ignored either. And it seems to be by a good majority of our politicians.

        IMHO, our population should give us MORE leverage to get cost reductions but it’s just not going to happen. We need a severe overhaul of our healthcare system and the people who benefit from our current system have too much power and influence.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          11 months ago

          It should though because economy of scale works to make things cheaper, not more expensive. They’re literally ignoring basic economics to make that argument.

            • Maggoty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              11 months ago

              Well that’s the issue. We don’t have a single system. We have an industry. I also love how that link completely dodges the motivation to raise prices purely for profit. But even with that, we already know the legitimate cost problem is due to multiple middle man companies that provide no value and just take money. And the more care they deny, the more money they make. So it’s a combination of problems. We have to pay them enough for them to employ people to find reasons to deny care.

    • GoofSchmoofer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      11 months ago

      I keep posting this article because I’m tired of hearing this statement as an excuse why we can’t do things for the American people.

      If it is something that the leaders want they seem to always find the money.

    • eskimofry@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Somehow you have more money for Israel, bailing out banks, covering police with pension, spending on stadiums, buying lavish gifts for SC Judges, and PPP loans but not enough to pay your citizens who built your country and shoulder it everyday?

  • SPRUNT@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    11 months ago

    The American “Healthcare” system is a money-making venture, first and foremost. Health care is simply the structure the corporations use to wring as much money from the masses as possible.

  • csm10495@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    I saw a commercial for healthcare.gov. It talked about how people only paid a few bucks for healthcare. It was all after government assistance.

    The fact that you need heavy government assistance to get healthcare shows how much of a failure things are here.

    Also in Mexico they have legal price limits on drugs. They’re printed on the box so you know if you’re getting a deal or paying the max. Also can see a doctor for like 40 pesos (about 2 to 3 USD). It’s much cheaper than my post insurance copay. I understand it’s a different market, but they have better general healthcare than the US.

    Also as a side note, most drugs don’t need a prescription. You can tell the pharmacist what hurts and they can tell you what should help (or when to see a Dr). If I want to see my Dr, I’m on hold for 20 minutes then get an appointment in 2 weeks. Once again: viva Mexico!

    • shastaxc@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      11 months ago

      In the US, when I want to see my doctor I drive 15 minutes to get there and tell them I need to be seen for whatever and then I wait 15 minutes and then talk to the doctor. If they say I need to talk to a specialist, that may take 1-2 weeks after making an appointment though. It’s not cheaper, but at least I can get care when I need it.

      Of course, not everyone can afford healthcare in our country. That’s the biggest problem. But it’s generally fast and competent.

      • plantedworld@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        11 months ago

        Man this is less and less the experience I’m seeing. Months to see my primary. Urgent care I can get in same day, but I work at hospital that saves slots for their employees

      • RBWells@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        11 months ago

        Where I am in the US, dentist schedules 6 months out, doctor likes you to schedule annual exams a year out and non urgent a couple of weeks at a minimum but there are some urgent care appointments available each day (or most days). Dermatologist and GYN a couple months wait for routine care. But there are lots of independent urgent care standalone clinics, including for orthopedic stuff, so for broken bones I did not have to go to the emergency room and incur that cost.

        It’s uneven I would say. Definitely not worth what we are paying in taxes, insurance premiums and payments to providers, though.

      • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        So about the same waiting times as developed nations with a healthcare system, but with 10 000 times the cost.

        I pay like 5€ in Belgium to go see a doctor, the rest is paid by my insurance. I can walk into a hospital right now and get service. As long as the issue warrants urgency of course. And a call to my house doctor can be met with a half hour wait time if it is less urgent.

      • shuzuko@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Most people cannot see their primary care physician just by driving up and being like, hey, I need to be seen for x issue. You pretty much have to make an appointment unless you go to a minute clinic or something. And that’s with insurance. Your experience is very much an outlier.

        • JonEFive@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          No kidding. There’s at least a month long wait to see any of my doctors. Same with my dentist unless it’s urgent. Usually it’s closer to two months.

          If I need immediate attention, I have to go to an urgent care clinic or emergency room.

          The nice thing is that in the year 2023, all of my doctors are reachable via the hospital system’s app and they respond to questions relatively quickly. So there’s no need to schedule a 15 minute appointment that ends up taking hours just to ask a simple question or two or to get a referral.

  • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    11 months ago

    what’s fun is for all this extra money we get a lower (and dropping) life expectancy and a higher infant mortality rate. that’s right, we pay more to bury our kids and then die sooner. FREEDOM BAYBAY!

  • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    11 months ago

    It has always been known that more money could be saved with Universal health care. But, this couldn’t be done in Congress. Nothing new here.

  • spudwart@spudwart.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    11 months ago

    Which proves the point, It’s not about money or the economy. It’s about inflicting suffering.

    • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      oh it’s about the money. it’s about funneling money from both the government and directly from the citizenry into the hands of private medical death panel operators