Cost Comparison: Fill & Download for Free

The FOREX market is the biggest financial market in the world (I say financial because in this answer I am not considering real estate as financial). A simple comparison of daily trading volume gives an idea on the relative size:$5.1 trillion FX and $84 billion equities [1]It is also 24h/5 as opposed to stock exchanges, more liquid thus less costs, mostly without transaction costs (only bid/ask spreads), and is heavily related to the macro economic cycle.Another thing is the ranging property of this market that gives way to more trading strategies as opposed to the trending nature of stocks of where it would be better to invest in passive tracking vehicles.Sofien Kaabar – MediumFootnotes[1] http://* 2016 Triennial Central Bank Survey of FX and OTC derivatives markets.

I lived in NYC and now live in central Tokyo so I will answer.In most things Tokyo is cheaper but in certain things NYC is cheaper.Mainly I found NYC cheaper for fruit, beef and other various meat products, and public transportation.I find Tokyo cheaper for everything else, especially housing, medical care, and average food.If you plan to buy or rent in central Tokyo, it will be far cheaper than NYC. NYC, Manhattan in particular, is VERY expensive. A condo that would cost $700k in central Tokyo would easily cost $2 million or more in Manhattan. Then add to it the management expenses (common charges) as even those are far higher in NYC. The real estate taxes are also much higher, as are the insurance costs, in NYC.Medical expenses are of course outrageous in the US compared to Japan, and this is nationwide regardless of area. However I find OTC drugs in NYC cheaper than Tokyo but overall I am spending much less for my medical expenses than in NYC.Public transportation (subways, buses) are cheaper in NYC, although the LIRR (commuter train) is more expensive than our trains here in Tokyo. However, overall, the level of service in Tokyo is far, far superior to that of NYC. Our trains and buses arrive on time. Our stations are clean (and are currently undergoing a massive renovation, including platform doors, etc.) I doubt that will happen in NYC. In fact, the NYC government has its hands full maintaining the existing subway system, much less have extra cash to install platform doors or air conditioning, the way we have.(Below pic of new Gina Line Shibuya station, flooring and platform doors yet to be finished.)Fruits in general, save bananas, are much cheaper in NYC, including even the more expensive fruits. I’m not talking about the super expensive fruits we have in our department stores (which are usually for gifts and special functions). Even in our local supermarkets, overall fruit is expensive compared to what I used to pay in NYC.The quality of average take-out food in Japan is higher and the cost is lower than NYC. However, NYC meals are far bigger. I once bought a sandwich at Burger King and it was so large, I ate half of it for lunch and the other half for dinner!I find clothing comparable, especially cheaper brands such as Uniqlo and other such brands. Of course designer brands are very expensive in both cities.So all things considered, you can live more cheaply in central Tokyo than in NYC. Again, it would all depend upon your needs and lifestyle.Hidesato Sakakibara's answer to How does living in Tokyo compare to living in New York City?

Q: In a single-payer healthcare system, what prevents hospitals from overcharging for treatment, since they know that the government will pay for it anyways? If the prices are controlled, wouldn't it be unfair to the spirit of free markets?There are two questions here.First part: Regulation prevents overcharging. Just like a lender cannot charge you 400% interest to loan you money in the U.S. (except regions outside/exempt from Federal law) even if you agreed to pay it.Second part: The U.S. was built on a capitalist "free" market based system.It is a fantastic model - sparks innovation, lowers cost and increases competition, among other good stuff.Because everyone wants to make money and no one wants to pay more than they have to.Except when that model does not work for certain things A, B and C.You see, A is healthcare.Subhobroto Sinha's answer to Is free market healthcare actually possible?The short version : a country that follows “free market healthcare” will have to accept humans being unable to afford care to literally die on the streetsMore on that in a moment, but I must take a quick detour:Disclaimer: This answer focuses solely on the terrible healthcare situation in the U.S. All discussion and data is tailored to the U.S. marketWe could go into page long debates about how Libertarianism itself has various facets to it: on one hand you have Libertarian socialists and on the other you have Anarcho-capitalists, each proposing their own unicorn and rainbows.The reason why most people ask questions like these is because they are frustrated about the cost of care they currently have to shoulder and the absolutely bad quality of service they get in return.Subhobroto Sinha's answer to Is American healthcare overpriced?The root reason for the disparity is, among other things, the system of "cost shifting" we have in the U.S.Let's look at the following chart:Note how there are patients who actually cost the provider money (those to the left of 0) - this means that the provider actually paid money to see the patient instead of the other way around.The median being around $230 and the mean being around $300 means that on bulk of the patients, the provider receives $230.Hence, for the provider to be profitable, they need to ensure their costs are well below $300 per patient regardless of what the patient pays!This means, that the patient who pays more than $230 (all the way over to the right where some patients are paying $700+) still gets a $230 value.This also means that, the provider has to ensure that they have to figure out ways to extract the maximum they can from each patient: no sane person will pay $700+ for a $230 value!This is called cost shifting:The U.S. Healthcare is setup to extort the employed via "cost shifting" because the sick or disabled cannot afford the exorbitant costs.Afterall the wages of the employed can be garnished and they have a salary that can pay bills, however ridiculous it might be!At this point, I hear you going "Boo! Greedy doctor takes more than they should! Death to greedy doctors!"Not so fast.Let's remove all emotion from the picture and go back to looking at cold hard data.Let’s first lay that free market rhetoric to rest:I come from India and I would argue India has a close to free-market healthcare system, not out of choice, but due to lack of money.Let me explain how that system works:When you see a physician, there is an upfront price and you decide whether you can or want to pay it.If you can’t you just find a provider who offers, what you need, at the price you are willing to pay for.This works well because it puts power back into hands of you and I - those who actually seek care.There are published prices and providers even compete on pricing! See:You can even purchase medical care on eBay in India.What you see is what you pay.Sounds good - but what if you cant afford to pay for this even if it’s inexpensive on a global scale?As citizens of a pseudo-developed country, U.S. Americans have decided having people die due to lack of access to care is not acceptable.Thus, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) was enacted that is a federal law that requires anyone coming to an emergency department to be stabilized and treated, regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay, but since its enactment in 1986 has remained an unfunded mandate.Thus, those people who cannot afford care, in theory, would just go to the ER and be stabilized when they fall really very sick and then wait for the hospital to bill them.It’s unlikely that those who could not afford preventative care would be able to afford the ER visit, so the bill remains unpaidThen the hospital “cost shifts” these unpaid bills to those patients who do have means to pay and thus a $100 bill becomes a $1MM bill instead.As a result, these kinds of bills are pretty common in the US:So no, the free market hammer does not work on the healthcare nail.Going back to the chart, do you see a significant part of the patients are skewed to the left - right where the provider not only makes very little money, but sometimes loses money?That's due to people being unable to provide funds for supporting their own care.Why this situation could happen would require page long articles, but for this answer, it all boils down to deferred treatment.You see, when one feels unwell, they have to make a decision to see a doctor or not.When you know that a doctor will try and extract the most from you, you will try and delay that event as much as possible.So if you have a cough, you are probably going to first buy some OTC medication and delay seeing a doctor.Unknown to you, the benign infection that could have been treated now not only grows a medication resistant strain (it's hard to kill life) but continues to spread in your body without expressing any immediate symptoms (because you have ingested some medication that masks symptoms)Soon enough, you start coughing blood as the benign infection has now spread to attack not only your nasal passage but your lungs, sinus and heart.Now multiple specialists need to be involved with far more expensive procedures and medicines compared to the initial doctor and some antibiotics.You might end up needing surgery and organ transplants depending on your specific case.Is a typical person able to afford all this expense? Data shows us : not so.So you cry out in desperation: "What should we do? What's the solution to all of this?"Hold on! There is no need to be desperate! We already have systems proven to work!Let's look at some data:Subhobroto Sinha's answer to Why can European nations afford universal health care and the USA can't?Let’s look at a comparison:See the “all payer rate setting” in the title of the chart? It means:all payer : everyone in the system, regardless of insured or not …rate setting: … pays the same rateSounds very simple, right?It is!Let the government ensure everyone pays the same reasonable rateTrying to make it work any differently gives rise to the disasters like U.S. Healthcare.The real issue is, at every turn, providers are trying to extract the maximum they can and profit from pain and suffering of their customers for very little measurable benefit: Avarice has overtaken them.For-profit hospitals mark up prices by more than 1,000 percent because there's nothing to stop themU.S. Healthcare providers should be held to the same standards as every other business in America: tell me how much its going to cost and let me, the customer decide if I want to do business with you.The customer in U.S. Healthcare can’t do this and has thus been stripped of all leverage.They don’t know what a procedure will cost.They don’t know if that procedure will cause further damage.They are in pain and suffering and only know they have a healthcare need and need a doctor.This puts the customer in a very fragile situation: leading to astronomical costs for little value.The customer in U.S. Healthcare right now is like a car driver with a blown tire by the freeway in the middle of a desert. They have no options.A tire is not that expensive, and the customer could have put one on themselves, but they are lacking all the right pieces.Then comes a tow truck, asks you how much you have got, takes most of it, makes you sign a contract saying they will bill you more later, puts an ill-fitting tire that not only bursts again sometime later but damages the rest of the car with it.Only, this is not your car: it’s your body.As industry disruptor Michael Critelli points out Michael Critelli's answer to Is it possible for nationalized healthcare to bankrupt a nation?:We do not adequately punish and discourage bad and expensive healthcare, such as the care that follows from a hospital-acquired infection.Avarice has gripped U.S. Healthcare so strongly that the industry has lost all shame and is the only business in America that treats its customers like blank checkbooks, refusing to even tell patients how much an office visit will cost: How do I find a general physician in San Diego who is known for helping people?Buy Here, Pay Here used car dealerships, which are one of the most infamous businesses in America: even they give you atleast an initial written quote before blindsiding you with hidden fees and charges, figuring out ways to take the car back from you.Most U.S. Healthcare providers lack even that decency.Greed starts at the very beginning: the education system for hopeful doctors.These institutions restrict the number of doctors flowing into the system, reducing supply. This allows them to charge sky high tuition fees in the U.S. which the students pay, taking on massive debt because they have a chance to earn much more in the future.The American Medical Association does a good job of artificially constraining the supply of doctors to keep doctor’s salaries highThe intense pressure we see in doctors to profit from their craft comes from 3 fundamental issues:There are very limited institutions for teaching medicine. This reduces the supply of doctors and lets these institutions charge hundreds of thousands of dollars in tuition fees. This adds a lot of cost to the medical industry. Right off the bat all doctors are at a financial disadvantage and in debtBilling for services are so complicated that doctors have long given up on handling billing for their patients. Instead, third party billing companies take a doctor's transcript and transcribe them to bills and claims to insurance companies. This adds a lot of overhead and hence cost. Not to mention, outright fraud: Subhobroto Sinha's answer to Is medical billing compliance a good career?Doctors are under constant fear that a patient will sue them (although this fear is unfounded: Why does one believe that malpractice insurance is the primary reason for US health-care being so expensive?). As a result they over-prescribe tests and medications. This adds a lot of cost to the medical industryI can't even imagine what frame of mind I will be in if I graduated from college with hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt: I would be looking for ways to pay off that debt ASAP!Any reasonable person would be biased in prioritizing paying off their debt: for doctors it's charging patients and seeing as many patients as they can.Seeing as many patients as they can reduces the time a doctor can spend with a patient and this leads to exactly the situation you describe: the doctor does not have the time to take a holistic view of the patient and the patient continues to make the same mistakes that made them fall sick in the first place.So they keep falling sick.In the end, the final client of any industry ends up paying for it.The final client for the medical industry being patients end up paying for all these inefficiencies.Education of patients is the key to a successful healthcare: Subhobroto Sinha's answer to Does a universal single-payer healthcare work if a higher percentage of the population is sedentary and fat, and as a result, is less healthy?Health is an educational endeavor - just like one needs to be taught how to add numbers, balance checkbooks, take smart financial and career decisions - one also needs to be taught how to make smart health decisions.Yet - when is the last time you were taught how to make smart health decisions?Did you know that less educated (and hence low income) people make more unhealthy choices?Regular Soda Popular With Young, Nonwhite, Low-IncomeYoung adults, nonwhites, and the low-income in the U.S. drink more regular soda than other Americans. Half of Americans aged 18 to 29 say they drink regular soda, making them the most likely to do so across not only age groups, but also across all major demographic and socioeconomic groups. Nonwhites (46%) and low-income Americans (45%) -- two groups among the most likely to be obese -- follow just behind the young in regular soda consumptionWhat about smoking?Yup!Why Do Low-Income People Smoke More and Drink More Soda, but Drink Less Alcohol?Although cigarette prices have been rising steeply for decades (they used to cost $.30 a pack in the early 1960s), mainly poor, less-educated people smoke them. According to the 2008 National Survey on Drug Use and Heath, 34 percent of those without a high school degree — and 31 percent of those with only a high school diploma — smoke; 14 percent of college graduates do.Q&A: Poverty and Soda Consumption a Recipe for Obesity?As you can see - this type of education requires a long term investment - children growing up well through teenage years into adulthood have to be educated and trained on how to make smart health decisions.Now I wonder which company do we have in the U.S. that will be willing to make such a long term investment without having a short term profit motive?Uhm, maybe this thing called the government?