zlacker

>>wallfl+(OP)
Healthcare in the US is broken and they won’t let you fix it because the money is too good. Think about the fact that PBMs, which is there to save and manage on pharma is incentivized to promote drug price inflation. That’s just one “small” piece of this clusterf*k. It’s layers and layers of these convoluted system of incentives.

As to OP, the simplest solution is to move out of the US early enough or become “poor” enough and be in a wealthy blue state by the time you get to this predicament.

>>lvl155+rl
Is it a coincidence that the industries with the most heavy government involvement - health care, education, and housing - are the most messed up with perverse incentives?

Whereas the software industry, with near zero government involvement, has had enormous improvements in function and has pushed the cost to literally zero.

>>Walter+1w1
Most other advanced nations have nationalized health care which works much better.

The US health care system is broken because health care is a natural monopoly that US free-market ideology dictates be run with (fake) "free markets" with result being a variety of companies profiting by abusing the system.

>>joe_th+ux1
other nations get benefits from 1. US subsidizing pharma startups and 2. less people with chronic diseases 3. offer lower quality of care at lower price point 4. import doctors vs solely rely on homegrown

USA is very very good at complicated, cutting edge medical care but not efficient at delivering routine care.

>>apwell+aA1
It's complicated, yes, but simplifying somewhat the "US" does not subsidize pharma startups.

Yes, VCs do put money into pharma, but that's private money very much expecting an (overall) profitable return. (Ironically most of that profit comes from Americans who have little or no way to collectively bargain on pricing.)

And yes, for bigger companies, there are tax breaks etc, but most of those are regular tax breaks that any company gets.

I won't get into the chronic disease stats. Other than to say that good primary Healthcare tends to reduce the incidence of chronic diseases.

Quality of care is hard to gauge on a national basis. It's a highly localized product, so experience can be different in very small geographic areas. Equally "quality of care" is s metric with many axies.

Naturally for-profit medical advertises a lot, and they strongly push the "quality of care" message. So the general perception of that is "private is better". How much of that is true, how much is perception, is up for debate. My personal experience (which counts for nothing) having experienced both, is that the standard of medical care is the same. (Fewer tvs in public care though.)

I'm not sure what importing doctors has to do with anything, or if it's even true. Personally I don't really care where a Dr is from.

>>bruce5+cH1
> It's complicated, yes, but simplifying somewhat the "US" does not subsidize pharma startups.

This is utterly false. Agencies like NIH, BARDA, and NSF fund early-stage biomedical R&D by providing SBIR/STTR grants to biotech and pharma startups. They also fund basic research and clinical trials as well as translational studies.

There is the Orphan Drug Tax Credit and R&D Tax Credit. Also, access to NIH labs, etc.

There is a whole plethora of funding. Moderna’s mRNA platform was heavily backed by NIH and BARDA even before COVID.