pour,
Would you care to provide something, anything, that explains why "genetic diversity" drives up healthcare costs? Or is that just your opinion?
Where do you get the idea that "massive immigration" has an impact? The US population is 13% foreign born, France is 11.1%, the UK is 8.3% (with many, many very diverse domestic born citizens from around the Commonwealth), and Germany is 12%, the highest in the EU.
https://www.google.com/search?q=immigrant+population+of+france&rlz=1C1CHMO_enUS504US504&oq=immigrant+population+of+france&aqs=chrome..69i57.9654j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8https://www.google.com/search?q=immigrant+population+of+the+us&rlz=1C1CHMO_enUS504US504&oq=immigrant+population+of+the+us&aqs=chrome..69i57.4874j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign-born_population_of_the_United_Kingdomhttp://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/germany-population/So tell me again how "massive immigration" in the US has a bearing on the cost of medical care - other than the obvious, which is the refusal of the US to adopt universal health care means that the immigrants, and other poorer populations, generally seek care from expensive ER settings and can't manage their chronic illnesses. As usual, you post opinions without any evidence to back them up.
As for the argument that our healthcare is expensive because we are subsidizing innovation for the rest of the world, that doesn't hold much water either. First, the US is behind several other nations in patents per capita or patents/GDP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Intellectual_Property_Indicators Therefore it is not entirely clear that, when our population and economy size is taken into account, we're all that much more innovative than other societies. It is also not clear how much high medical industry profits play into the US lead in biomedicine - what percentage of our biomedicine edge comes from high profits, vs. massive government investment in universities and basic research since WWII? You have to answer these questions before simply asserting as fact the idea that high profits = innovation.
Second, the price that we pay for drugs and medical devices is not some magical working of the invisible hand of the market. It's a public policy decision. Our elected leaders, bought and paid for by industry lobbyists, have decided that the American taxpayer and consumer will pay huge amounts to Big Pharma and Big Device - and it's not like the massive amount we overpay for these products is just barely helping Big Pharma and Big Device scrape by. They're some of the most profitable businesses in America by fairly wide margins, especially Big Device. That is so even though they are selling at low prices to more efficient health systems elsewhere - which they are in no way obligated to do. If they are losing money in those markets, why are they selling into them? In fact, they are perfectly happy to make good money selling into France, and REALLY happy to make HUGE money selling in the US.
Third, Big Pharma and Big Device want you to believe that if they don't make $Texas, they can't develop new drugs. Strange, then, that almost all pharmaceutical companies allocate way more of their revenue to marketing and profit than they do to R&D.
http://www.drugwatch.com/manufacturer/ They also regularly issue greatly inflated claims about the costs of R&D.
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_customer/2011/03/the_makebelieve_billion.1.html
http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e4348
If you want to believe the sky will fall line that Big Pharma is selling you, go ahead. But you ought to look at some real numbers before forming that opinion.