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.

    • SupraMario@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      37
      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
          16
          ·
          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.

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

          Yeah that’s pretty informative. I am not sure how well the recommendation for implementing it in the US would work though. It’s probably the best chance anyone in the US has for government funded healthcare, but it would mean people in the poorest states would get the worst healthcare. It would probably still be a step up and we could give solutions to that problem later.

      • General_Effort@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        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?

        • RBWells@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          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.

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

            small businesses would benefit, and entrepreneurs,

            Quite possible. Rates of self-employment are higher in France and Germany (2022 OECD stats). I’m not sure if that figure should be taken at face value, though.

            unless it was a Germany style system

            You mean a system with mandatory insurance? Administrative costs are substantially higher in US health care. Anything to bring quality and costs more in line with peer countries would mean a substantial hit, regardless of the system adopted.

            Why not pay people to do something with a good impact on the land or the people?

            Good question. Just a cursory glance into the statistics will tell anyone that the US system is dysfunctional. It’s been that way for decades or longer. I don’t even know when it became obvious that it wasn’t doing as well as its peers. And yet, there hasn’t been a lot of effort to improve it (Kudos to Obama, though). Maybe Americans just don’t want to do what it takes. Maybe they just want a better outcome, without all the small, necessary steps to get there.

            • RBWells@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              On Unless it was a Germany style system (sorry I don’t know how to do the inline quotes yet)

              I mean that Germany uses highly regulated private insurance plans to get to universal coverage. That would probably be an easier sell here, than a one plan to rule them all NHS. Not saying it’s a better idea. I have argued for YEARS that single payer would be a good idea here because we already have Medicare, just expand it to everyone and audit the fuck out of the providers would be cheapest and most efficient.

        • 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
            2
            ·
            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
              4
              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.

        • LrdThndr@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          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