Any improvement in efficiency would mean those people lose out on jobs. A new use for them must be found, or there will be massive unemployment (at least, short-medium term).
I mean I don't want anyone suffering either (one would hope you'd have adequate social safety net to take care of these people until they find another job) but it's such a bizarre exemption to carve out
For a theoretical based on what actually happened where I live, Hospital X is contractually obligated to use a specific kind of infusion pump from supplier Y and order blood tests from specific supplier Z in order to get Blue Cross Blue Shield coverage. Meanwhile the state university pushed out the other hospital in the city and heavily expanded the surviving hospital campus they sponsored to take on the increased capacity and introduce the services they were previously lacking compared to their now dead competitor. So Hospital X is just following the policy of University Network A. All of which is a common practice.
In many states the state university sponsored medical care networks are the or are close to being the biggest employers. The University Of Iowa medical network, the West Virginia University network, and University Of Pittsburgh Medical Center network all have taken over a majority of medical care functions in their states, leaving mostly specialists and those in mental health to independent practices. That exacerbates the issue of insurance and supplier contracts, because these small places that are competing with the university networks often don't bother with insurance unless it's government provided and just prefer patients pay up front instead. They lose too much time and money sorting through the myriad private insurance providers, plans, and coverage obligations without full time staff to handle that for them. Medical billing is a massive industry for a reason.
Now, if everyone wasn't chained to private insurance and juggling all of these providers, coverage limits, and contractual obligations the number of inefficiencies and thus the overall cost would decrease. We have historical examples of this even in the U.S., by comparing what happened between 1960 to 1975 and it's modern equivalent of 2005 to 2020. Healthcare costs were increasing rapidly, doctors were dwindling in number, and there weren't enough medical students for generalist fields in the 1960s just like the 2010s. The major difference is that while quality of care continued to increase through the 1960s and early 1970s, both the efficacy and quality of care has gone down since the 2000s. The several minor differences were that nationwide coverage was rarely available in the 1960s compared to the 2010s, that Medicare was spending more than it was receiving in the early 1970s thanks to how Medicare was funded in the 1960s, and that privatization of entire hospitals was uncommon and frowned upon in the 1960s because of the income impact it had on the doctors. The U.S. barely survived the 1960s medical crunch with enough government intervention, but it is dying under the weight of the 2010s medical crunch because the government can't easily intervene and is lobbied to maintain distance.
So the reason the lead figures in the American right are worried about single payer is because they won't make as much money. And they're very good at convincing people to vote against their own interests because they know those people don't care to look into complex systems too deeply. As a result many of the regular voters and workers are worried because someone told them a lie about where the money is actually being wasted and what the actual history is.
Just picking this point out - how can lobbying stop something? As in it's worth too much lobby money to politicians to change it?
For instance, Germany is producing the Leopard 2. They may export most of them during peacetime, but should they need to, they could start pumping out those tanks for the Bundeswehr instead. Furthermore, with the skills available domestically, it would take much less time to repurpose VW/BMW/Audi factories to also produce weapons.
The first economist says to the other “I’ll pay you $100 to eat that pile of shit.” The second economist takes the $100 and eats the pile of shit.
They continue walking until they come across a second pile of shit. The second economist turns to the first and says “I’ll pay you $100 to eat that pile of shit.” The first economist takes the $100 and eats a pile of shit.
Walking a little more, the first economist looks at the second and says, "You know, I gave you $100 to eat shit, then you gave me back the same $100 to eat shit. I can't help but feel like we both just ate shit for nothing."
"That's not true," responded the second economist. "We increased the GDP by $200!"
You used a wrong allegory to try to demonstrate a point that noone was making.
Another example of political economy is two different efforts to address climate crisis, with very different outcomes.
During the Obama Admin, the push was for carbon taxes. Wonks loved it. Logical, concise, moral. Complete nonstarter. Because carbon taxes has no built-in constituency that's willing to advocate and defend it.
Whereas in 2020, progressives pushed "green new deal" themed industrial policy and investment strategy. Made most everyone a benefactor. Millions of jobs. 100s of billions of dollars. Much better political economy.
Thankfully the economist bastiat solved this absurdity in 1850.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
you laugh, but this is exactly what the US gov't does, esp. with military budget allocation. Why do you think all sorts of military products are split into different pieces for manufacturing, separated into different states? It certainly doesn't help efficiency.
I'm not saying that healthcare shouldn't be improved via efficiency increases - it needs improving! But let's not kumbaya and ignore the plight of those whose livelihood would be disrupted (and not of their own fault).