People ration insulin while insurers post record profits, but supporters say the system still delivers the best specialists and shortest wait times on Earth. Broken beyond repair, or just misunderstood? Debate it.
Join the debate to comment
Reading is free. Members pay to post — that's why it stays clean.
Add your commentI defended the system for years. Conservative, pro-market, the whole thing. Then my mom got Alzheimer's. Five years of watching a family get financially destroyed alongside the medical destruction. I'm not ideologically pure on this anymore. I just want something that doesn't do that to families.
My daughter has Type 1 diabetes. She was diagnosed at seven. She is now nineteen and the single biggest source of anxiety in our household — bigger than college, bigger than anything — is what happens to her coverage when she ages off our plan. Her life literally depends on a bureaucratic deadline. This is not a policy abstraction to us.
worked in medical billing for 11 years. the number of people who just... pay whatever we send them without questioning it is heartbreaking. i've seen bills go out with errors that would've bankrupted families. always always always request an itemized bill. always.
My dad died in 2019 because he kept delaying going to the ER. Not because he was scared of needles or being sick. Because he was scared of the bill. He had insurance. He still owed $34,000 after it paid out. Tell me again how this system is just 'misunderstood.'
Nurse here, 14 years in emergency medicine. I want to respond to the person who mentioned the ER 'solution.' I watch people come in every single shift for conditions that should have been managed in a primary care office three months ago. Uncontrolled hypertension. Diabetic ketoacidosis. Dental infections that spread to the jaw. These aren't emergencies that came out of nowhere — they're the predictable end result of people having nowhere else to go. And then we treat them, and the bill destroys whatever financial stability they had left, and they avoid care even longer next time. It's a spiral. I got into this work to help people heal. I did not get into it to be the last stop on a road that never should have gotten that far.
My grandfather came here from the Philippines in 1974 and he always said America had the best medicine in the world. He believed that until he got a $190,000 bill for his hip replacement at 81. He paid into this country for 40 years. That's what he got back.
What gets me is the insulin thing specifically. Eli Lilly didn't suddenly get more expensive to run. The drug didn't get more complex to manufacture. The price went up because it could. That's not a market. That's a hostage situation.
Three hospitalizations in four years. Total billed: $340,000. Total I actually owed after insurance: still $28,000 out of pocket. I make $52,000 a year. I'm still paying it off. Tell me again how this isn't broken.
fun fact that'll make your head spin: the US government already spends more per capita on healthcare than most countries with universal coverage. more. per person. in tax dollars. before anyone pays a single premium or copay or deductible. we are already paying for universal healthcare. we are just not receiving it. let that marinate.
i'm 34. haven't been to a doctor in six years. not because i'm stubborn. because the math doesn't work. i pick groceries or i pick a copay. every month it's groceries. i'm not an edge case. i am the system.
I'm genuinely undecided on the best solution but I know for certain that a system where getting cancer is a potential path to bankruptcy is morally unacceptable for a country with our wealth. Whatever your politics, that should be the baseline agreement we start from.
I live in rural Montana. The nearest specialist is four hours away. My neighbor drove that four hours for a cardiology appointment, got there, and found out his insurance wouldn't cover that particular doctor. Drove home. Had a heart attack three weeks later. You want to talk about wait times? Try no access at all.
Every time this debate happens someone brings up 'rationing' in other countries like we don't already ration. We just ration by wealth instead of by need. I'll take rationing by medical necessity over rationing by bank account any day.
My cousin is a physician in Germany. She sees 25 patients a day, nobody goes bankrupt, and her malpractice premiums are a fraction of what American doctors pay. She visited me last year and I took her to a hospital fundraiser — she literally could not comprehend why a hospital needed to fundraise. That moment crystallized something for me.
Lost my job in March 2022. COBRA was $1,847 a month for my family. I make that sound casual — one thousand eight hundred and forty-seven dollars a month to keep the coverage we had. I had two kids with pediatricians they'd been seeing for years and a wife managing hypothyroidism. We paid it for four months until we literally could not. This is not a fringe story. This is millions of American families making impossible arithmetic every single month and we're out here debating whether the system is 'misunderstood.'
My wife has lupus. Every year it's the same ritual — appeal denied, appeal denied, appeal approved. Her rheumatologist says the prior authorization process has gotten so bad she's thinking about leaving practice. When your specialist shortage is caused by paperwork, something has gone deeply wrong.
Can someone explain to me why my hospital charges $47 for a single ibuprofen? I have the bill. I've looked at it many times. Forty. Seven. Dollars. For ibuprofen. And nobody acts like this is insane.
Somebody somewhere in this debate is going to say 'just go to the ER' as if that's a solution and not a symptom. The ER is the most expensive, least efficient delivery mechanism for primary care that exists and we've decided it's the safety net. That's the summary of the whole problem right there.
Former hospital administrator here. The dirty secret is that hospitals don't actually know what things cost in any meaningful way. Chargemasters list prices that nobody pays, insurers negotiate secret rates, and patients get bills that are essentially fiction. There's no functional market here because nobody has real price information.
I have a chronic pain condition. I've been on the same medication regimen that works for me for three years. Every single January my insurance resets and I have to start from scratch proving to some stranger at a desk why I need what my doctor already prescribed. It's not broken. It's working exactly as designed — to exhaust you until you give up.
The person above me is factually incorrect. The Commonwealth Fund has published comparative data across 11 high-income nations repeatedly. The US ranks last or near-last on access, equity, and health outcomes — while spending more than double per capita than most peers. These aren't hidden numbers. They're published by researchers across the political spectrum.
The NIH — a public institution — funded research underlying 210 out of 210 drugs approved between 2010 and 2016. The 'private innovation' argument for keeping the current insurance system intact is a category error. Public funding drives discovery. Private companies price the results.
What I find remarkable is that this is treated as a left vs right issue when medical bankruptcy is happening to Republicans and Democrats equally. The ideology doesn't protect you from a bad diagnosis. Maybe the only coalition that can actually change this is the one built from people who've been personally crushed by it — and that coalition is enormous by now.
my take: broken implies accident. this was built deliberately. every labyrinthine prior auth process, every narrow network, every EOB that takes a PhD to understand — these aren't bugs. friction is the product.
As someone who spent fifteen years in health policy before burning out completely, I can tell you that the people who say 'it's complicated' are not wrong. But complicated does not mean unfixable. We choose every year through legislation and budget decisions not to fix it. That's a choice, not an inevitability.
As a small business owner who pays $1,900 a month for a family plan with a $6,500 deductible, I genuinely don't know what the argument FOR the current system even is. I'm paying enormous amounts and still essentially uninsured until I spend thousands out of pocket. Who is this working for?
ngl the 'best specialists on earth' argument only matters if you can actually get to one lmao. might as well brag about having the world's greatest restaurant that only serves billionaires
Here's what I actually think gets missed in this conversation: the problem isn't just access or cost, it's that preventive care is structurally disincentivized. Insurers change every few years, so why would they invest in your 20-year diabetes prevention if another insurer reaps the savings? The incentive structures are fundamentally misaligned with health outcomes.
The mental health side of this doesn't get enough attention. Finding an in-network psychiatrist who is actually accepting patients is basically a part-time job. I spent four months calling people and got put on a six-month waitlist. The 'mental health parity' law exists on paper. In practice it's fiction.
I'm 28 and I've never had a primary care doctor. Not because I'm healthy. Because by the time I pay rent and groceries in this economy, a $300 office visit isn't happening. I just... deal with things. I know that's not smart. I genuinely cannot afford to be smart about my health.
I work in insurance. I've seen prior auth denials for medications that cost $12 at the pharmacy. The amount of administrative energy spent on fighting those denials — by hospital staff, by doctors, by patients — is obscene. It doesn't save money systemically. It just shifts costs and suffering around.
The 'shortest wait times' claim needs an asterisk the size of Texas. Shortest wait times IF you have insurance. IF your insurance covers that specialist. IF the specialist is in-network. IF you can take time off work. IF you can afford the copay. Remove any one of those IFs and the wait time becomes infinity.
The 'best specialists in the world' point is technically accurate for about 4% of the population. Congratulations.
the answer to the challenge above is: nothing. there is no defense of the financing system. you can defend American hospitals, American doctors, American researchers. the financing mechanism is indefensible and everybody in health policy knows it.
the tax argument above assumes we'd pay more total. we wouldn't. we already pay more per capita in government healthcare spending than most countries with universal systems — just without covering everyone. the math is not what people think it is
The ideological purity argument against single payer frustrates me enormously. We already have single payer for seniors. It's called Medicare. Its administrative overhead is around 2%. Private insurers run 12-20%. The math isn't complicated.
weary of this conversation tbh. we've been having it since at least hillary clinton in 1993. the reason nothing changes isn't that we don't understand the problem. it's that the people who benefit from the current system spend hundreds of millions of dollars making sure nothing changes. follow the lobbying money and the confusion goes away fast.
it's working for shareholders lol. that's literally who it's working for. the system is functioning exactly as designed
whats wild is that employer-based insurance made sense in like 1950 when you stayed at one job your whole life. we just... never updated the architecture. its like running windows 95 on a 2024 machine and wondering why everything crashes
Respectfully pushing back on the person who keeps bringing up innovation. Yes, the US leads in certain drug and device development. But innovation funded largely by NIH public dollars and sold back to Americans at 4x what other countries pay is not a success story for patients. It's a subsidy from taxpayers to shareholders.
not broken. just optimized for the wrong goal. there's a difference. a perfectly optimized machine aimed at the wrong target isn't broken — it's dangerous.
Challenge for anyone defending the status quo: name one thing — one specific thing — about the current insurance-based American healthcare financing system that is genuinely superior to how comparable wealthy nations handle it. I'll wait.
I'm a nurse. 14 years in. The clinical care Americans receive when they actually ACCESS the system is genuinely excellent in many respects. The problem isn't the medicine. It's everything surrounding the medicine — billing, insurance denial, prior authorizations, network confusion. Strip all that away and our clinicians are world class. Fix the pipeline, not the doctors.
People act like this is some unsolvable mystery but literally every other wealthy nation figured something out. Germany, Japan, France, Australia — they all have different systems, none of them perfect, all of them better by most measures. We're not special. We're stubborn.
To the person above — I'm genuinely glad you got seen quickly and I hope you're okay. But you're describing ONE data point. The median American with a cancer scare who is uninsured or underinsured has a very different story and we shouldn't set policy based on whoever is luckiest.
genuine question for the 'just reform it incrementally' crowd: how many incremental reforms have we had since 1993 and what has the trend line on uninsured rates, medical bankruptcy, and drug prices looked like? asking genuinely.
The $47 ibuprofen thing is called cost-shifting and it's a direct consequence of the negotiated rate system. The hospital sets an absurd sticker price, insurers negotiate it down, and anyone without insurance pays something in between. It's not arbitrary — it's structural. Still outrageous, but there's a logic to it that the system created.
The Canada argument always comes up and it always ignores that Canadians still live longer than Americans on average. So even with those wait times, something is going right up there.
lol at the people comparing us to Germany or Switzerland without mentioning those countries have HEAVILY regulated private insurers and strict price controls. the difference isnt public vs private. its regulated vs unregulated. we chose unregulated and here we are
Broken? Yes. Beyond repair? That's where I push back. Medicare exists. The VA exists. Medicaid exists. These are government programs that work, imperfectly but they work, and they prove the bones of a better system are already there. We're not starting from zero.
okay genuine hot take incoming: the system isnt broken for everyone and THAT is actually the core problem. if it were broken for everyone it wouldve been fixed decades ago. its working great for people with money and good jobs and those people happen to be the ones with political power. so the brokenness is load-bearing. it's doing exactly what it's supposed to do for the people whose opinions get heard.
everything being 'mixed' and 'unevenly distributed' is just a polished way of saying poor people suffer more. let's not launder that in academic language.
Broken? Sure. But here's the thing nobody wants to say out loud: Americans also don't want to pay the taxes necessary for a different system. We want European outcomes on American tax aversion and those two things are incompatible. We get the system our voting patterns produce.
im so tired of people acting like fixing this requires reinventing the wheel. germany did it in 1883. EIGHTEEN EIGHTY THREE. bismarck figured out universal coverage before there were cars and we still cant manage it
Both parties have had chances to fix this for 40 years and neither one actually did it. At some point you gotta stop blaming the other side and admit this is a systemic failure that crosses party lines.
Okay I'll be the contrarian. I had a cancer scare last year. From symptom to oncologist appointment was nine days. Nine. My British friend with a similar situation waited four months on the NHS. I'm not saying the American system is better overall but let's not pretend speed of specialist access is a myth for everyone.
The framing of 'broken vs misunderstood' is itself kind of a dodge. A system can be working exactly as intended and still be causing massive harm. Understanding it perfectly doesn't make it acceptable.
Okay but let's be real — if we went full single payer tomorrow, government bureaucracy would find new and creative ways to make it a mess. I'm not defending the current system. I'm skeptical that handing MORE power to the federal government automatically fixes anything.
I moved from Texas to Vermont three years ago partly for this reason. Vermont has its problems but my kids' pediatric care situation improved immediately. Healthcare access in this country is also a geography problem and nobody talks about that enough. Where you're born or where you can afford to live determines your health outcomes as much as anything else.
I actually want to push back gently on some of the international comparisons being made throughout this thread. I'm not defending the American system — I'm not — but I think we sometimes romanticize places like Canada and the UK in ways that aren't fully honest either. Canada has serious specialist wait time problems. The NHS is genuinely under severe strain right now. These are real tradeoffs, not just talking points invented by insurance lobbyists. The question isn't whether those systems are perfect. The question is whether we could design something better than what we have, and I think the honest answer is yes, obviously, we could do better than this. The bar is just very low.
hard disagree with the framing of this whole debate. 'broken' implies it worked at some point. when exactly? for who?
My brother is convinced the whole thing works fine because he has good insurance through his union and his kids are healthy. I love him but talking to him about this is like describing color to someone who's never opened their eyes. Not his fault exactly. But the system has a feature where if you're doing okay you just... never see how the other half is living until something catastrophic happens. Then you see it all at once.
The emotional stories are real but policy can't be made purely on anecdotes. We need to look at this systematically — cost curves, outcomes data, coverage rates. When you do that the picture is genuinely mixed, not pure catastrophe. There are things working. They just aren't evenly distributed.
Look I get it, the system has real problems. But have you ever actually dealt with healthcare in a country with 'universal' coverage? I lived in Canada for two years. Six month wait for an MRI. Don't romanticize what you don't understand.
Nope. Hard disagree. American innovation in medicine is what the entire world benefits from. You weaken the profit motive here and watch how fast pharmaceutical breakthroughs slow down globally.
Confidently going to say this: other countries have way worse healthcare overall, they just hide their wait times and mortality data. The US system is fine, people just want everything for free.
Is it wrong to choose not to have children just because you don't want to?
110 comments
Would you still eat meat if you had to kill the animal yourself?
109 comments
Are dating apps genuinely harder for men or for women?
108 comments
Is judging someone by their height as shallow as judging by their weight?
108 comments