Universal health coverage may save lives and money but this study doesn't provide actual evidence for it.
So well known you neglected to state or cite them? I'd invite you to do so now.
Cars, clothes, TVs, Labubu dolls. People will use the savings to buy things. In massive quantities.
I would argue the government case is actually much worse because at least the CEO has the feedback mechanism of revenue because the company <> customer relationship is entirely voluntary on both sides. The public vote is supposed to restrain the government in the same way, but in practice it seems to be much less effective in restraining politicians than the customer is at restraining companies.
It was not for a lack of motivation or a lack of cut-throat pursuit, consequences be damned.
1. A number of other developed countries have UHC while also allowing a private system as well - what is unique about the US that other countries' existing approach couldn't work here?
2. Less importantly, in this world where everyone has medicare, but a smaller fraction have private coverage, your argument is that the existing healthcare providers would choose to give up most of their (medicare) patients? If so, why wouldn't providers choose to stop serving medicare patients under the pre-2026 system, where giving up medicare patients would be a far smaller loss than in a world where everyone has medicare?
Mainly, expectations. I understand that UHC in European countries doesn’t cover all the things Americans assume it does.
Japan apparently keeps costs down by not using cutting-edge drugs. That’s not going to happen in the US.
The US Congress just isn’t good at keeping costs down.
> 2. ... why wouldn't providers choose to stop serving medicare patients under the pre-2026 system, where giving up medicare patients would be a far smaller loss than in a world where everyone has medicare?
They absolutely do. Many providers don’t accept Medicare. Very few providers accept Medicaid. The payments just aren’t high enough.
> Many providers don’t accept Medicare. Very few providers accept Medicaid.
1. About the same percent accept Medicare as private insurance (85-90%, while ~70% accept Medicaid - is that "very few"?).
2. "Medicare for all" is one of the primary proposals being discussed.
3. Previous smaller expansions of government healthcare resulted in expanded provider capacity to handle them, not less, but your argument is that we'd see the opposite results from further expansion?
4. And in this new world where everyone had Medicare or similar, your argument is that providers would choose to ignore most patients, where they don't under the existing system where government-sponsored healthcare makes up a significantly smaller portion of the customer base?
5. And your argument is that if the government finds that healthcare providers contract to the point that outcomes remain the worst among every developed country, as they are today, that the government would be unwilling to make any changes (such as reimbursement rates) to address this?
The argument is that the US system has a much lower floor, which leads to the bad health outcomes, but also generates a lot of people who expect and demand more than most universal healthcare systems would give them. An Uber driver with the cheapest marketplace plan he could find would benefit greatly from any universal healthcare system; a guy with really bad ulcerative colitis (https://www.propublica.org/article/unitedhealth-healthcare-i...) would likely not be able to get a prescription for a cocktail of drugs at non-FDA-approved doses costing $2M/year.
I remember when President Obama suggested “maybe you’re better off not getting the surgery but taking the painkiller” ( https://youtu.be/rin4h4cRs6Y ). That seemed to surprise many of the people who wanted a single payer option. He stopped suggesting that kind of cost-cutting that very quickly.
I also remember when a few people received anthrax in the mail. Every news story said that people who had any contact with the letter had received Cipro to avoid developing an infection. After a couple of weeks, the government actually announced that other (cheaper) antibiotics were effective against anthrax, but it was obvious that no company was going to hand their employees something other than Cipro.
Incidentally, my autistic adult son has Medicaid. I don’t think I’ve yet found a doctor who will accept it. Luckily he’s also on my health insurance.
There's this idea that there are no upsides to the American system, only downsides.
1. money to providers
2. overall healthcare consumption
3. bureaucratic redundancy and waste
1 is going to piss off medical providers. 2 is going to piss of the general public. 3 is going to piss off the 20 million healthcare industry workers who are not direct care providers. So pick your poison. This is why it will never pass.
Like I would love to go to law school but I can't afford it. So many possible but inherently unattainable futures. We'll get there.
America: Sounds like communism