Universal health coverage could save $1T and 114k lives a year: study
ysph.yale.edu
ysph.yale.edu
The authors derive the $1T number from $1.3T in total cost savings and $304B in incremental spend (incremental spend is due to insuring more people). The $1.3T in cost savings come from five big buckets: lower pharmaceutical prices, Medicare-level payments to providers, reduced administrative overhead, less fraudulent billing, and fewer avoidable emergency department visits and hospitalizations.
The buckets themselves don't necessarily survive much scrutiny.
Take "Medicare-level payments to providers". Hospitals have an operating margin of 2-5%. Medicare pays 50% less than private insurance. So doing this would require either layoffs, cutting salaries for doctors/nurses/etc, or both. This may well be the right decision for society as a whole--that's a big part of the debate here--but there's no free lunch.
The line item of "fewer avoidable emergency department visits and hospitalizations" assumes greater insurance coverage leads to greater access to primary care. It's true that great primary care prevents hospitalizations, and can be a net cost saving under certain assumptions [1]. But, we're actually in a primary care shortage. Existing insurance payments for primary care are low enough that private practices are going out of business and fewer residents are going into family medicine. Cutting rates (the paragraph above) would make this worse.
For "less fraudulent billing," a lot of people in the industry believe that Medicare has a large amount of undetected fraud. That's unfortunately the flip-side of reduced administrative overhead. The authors assume an 8% savings here, but the 2003 paper they cite uses the word "fraud" only twice and doesn't give a number.
Healthcare reform is hard.
[1] Reasonable breakdown on the economics of advanced primary care models: https://olearykm.medium.com/the-cost-equation-for-new-primar...
You arent considering
1. Hospitals eating the cost of the uninsured, which this would solve
2. Hospital spending tons on administrative duties fighting with insurers on coverage, which this would reduce
Would this go away, though? Instead of fighting with insurers they would be fighting with the government insurer?
I am very pro universal healthcare, I just don’t want to pretend there aren’t still going to be fights over what should be paid for.
No matter what, there are going to be disagreements on what medical procedures should be paid for and who needs them, as well as how much they should be billed for.
OP makes a good point. The studies assumes two diametrically opposed things will happen - doctors will take a 50% pay cut but access to primary care physicians will increase.
Why would we solve the primary care physician shortage by cutting their pay?
About 8% of the population is uninsured. The uninsured population skews younger, with less healthcare utilization (Medicare already covers everyone 65 and older).
Another comment in this thread estimated billing overhead at 8.5%. Medicare for All would eliminate some, but not all of this, since Medicare is still a claims-based system. You would remove a lot of overhead around prior auths, which I agree is a good thing, but could be achieved with more focused legislation.
This layer won't go without a fight. Maybe it _is_ the layer we're fighting against. The owners will still make profit, the providers still have jobs.. but the middle layers are useless bloat. They don't have skills to provide care, they don't operate at the capitalist layer. They are useless today, and even more useless tomorrow.
And that is likely useless layer is millions? of jobs.
Wouldn't it just transfer the cost from the hospitals to the universal coverage agency? This would make the financial picture even worse for the proposed system.
In every case costs have gone down and outcomes have improved.
You always build on what you have because you can’t pause healthcare for very obvious reasons.
Hence a lot of different systems all with the same aim. Controlled costs and universal coverage.
The idea the US is somehow different and cannot make the change is the result of propaganda and a mistaken belief that the current Us system is the worlds best despite its costs.
Healthcare reform is easy and there is an ocean of prior art.
Health care is an absolutely massive industry (everywhere, not just in the United States), and slashing compensation in a massive industry by top-down fiat is in fact not an especially easy thing to do.
this isn't really true though, if you look at survival rates of many diseases.
Any model that gets rid of these frees up a huge swath of capital and work from society, and can use that work elsewhere. Of course, that is easier said than done.
Each of those are companies worth billions of dollars that could be instead used to lower the individual cost of providing health insurance.
As you say, this would of course be unsavory in some respects as those companies employ a lot of people. It's not a very economically productive industry though, the main output seems to be consuming patients' and doctors' time, causing financial anguish, and causing stress among people as to whether or not if their condition will be covered.
We all contribute to the pool at a time when we don't need it so we can use the money when we do, not to make CEOs or stockholders rich. That is how an insurance pool should work. Any excess money at the end of the year should be moved to the pool for the next year, not as a bonus on CEOs' 100m+ salary.
Americans are constantly trying to exclude uninsured people from their statistics (and, worse, from the care itself) but the comparable countries don't do this so it is utterly ridiculous to propose that the correct statistical comparison is one in which the US excludes the undesirables while other countries don't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_hea...
Total health spending per capita in PPP$
2024 2023 2022
United States 14,885 13,818 12,898
Switzerland 9,963 9,301 9,089
Norway 9,393 8,909 8,533
Germany 9,365 8,503 8,652
Netherlands 8,436 7,615 7,517
Austria 8,401 7,697 7,700
Luxembourg 8,087 7,173 6,854
Sweden 7,871 7,364 6,977
Ireland 7,813 7,027 6,748
Belgium 7,750 7,178 6,906
Australia 7,469 7,015 6,907Very curious where this comes from and how accurate it is. For example the $37 a provider charges for an Aspirin seems like more than 2-5% margin.
When the hospital charges you $37 for an aspirin, that singular pill might have a crazy profit margin in isolation. But your entire treatment could very well be losing the hospital money.
In my own anecdotal experience, the one hospital I know enough details about to comment on specifically, had something like 85% of patients costing the hospital more money than the hospital made. It was entirely funded by the relatively small number of people who had the “right” insurance and had the “right” procedures done.
Eg Kaufman: https://www.vizient.com/insights/reports/national-hospital-f...
The $37 for an aspirin offsets huge costs elsewhere for (non-NP) nurses, receptionists, janitors, orderlies, etc., who can’t bill directly to medicare.
When you see $37 aspirin on the line, nobody actually pays $37 for it. The billed amount is replaced with whatever insurance rate is allowed for that. If someone is cash paying they get a large discount.
The billed items also have to cover everything. It’s not directly $37 for the aspirin, or the $5 or whatever allowed coverage it ultimately gets billed it. That had to cover the facilities, the salaries of the pharmacy staff who reviewed the request and dispensed it, the staff who inventory and order the medications, and the cost of billing insurance.
The only part that nationalized health care would change are the allowable billed rate and maybe the administrative overhead of billing different insurances. Even nationalized health care systems have admin overhead though.
You can think of it like when you have to pay $11 for a single glass of wine from a bottle that the restaurant paid $10 for. You’re not just paying for the liquid, you are paying into a big bucket of charges that all need to add up to more than the cost of the supplies, staff, building, and everything that goes into running it. The margin on individual products doesn’t make the entire operation profitable.
ER’s for example are money pits, but society really needs them.
https://www.definitivehc.com/resources/healthcare-insights/h...
The margin built into the prices bulled is not the actual margin the hospital ends up with.
I am constantly told how much less Europeans pay for better health outcomes and all I can think about was the obesity crisis I grew up around in Texas.
Socializing healthcare isn’t going to get an huge portion of the population out of their cars and get them walking as a primary or secondary mode of transportation. Not when it’s 100° and the grocery store is five miles away.
Americans, in no small part, have worse health outcomes because we have dramatically worse lifestyles. I support German-style universal healthcare, but I’m not going to pretend it will suddenly give us German health outcomes.
One reason hospitals have such low margins is many people simply can't pay. If you have a payment guarantee like a medicare for all system, this will increase the stability of hospitals. In fact likely bring back some hospitals in places that didn't make sense like rural areas, which have been struggling via hospital closures.
If you are worried a low cost system will reduce doctors and hospitals per capita you don't need to, as countries that have universal healthcare often have more per capita.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/doctors-p...
I'm curious where you got this figure, because it doesn't track with my own experience.
I used to work for a place that worked closely with hospital clients (and prospective clients) to resolve billing issues with a particular EMR system, and we regularly discovered that a given hospital was losing hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars weekly due to missing charges. The problem was, so much money was sloshing around that the hospitals were virtually always unaware of the missing charges, and many CIOs were more interested in saving face by shutting down further discussion than in walking through the collected data, how to fix the charging issues, and even claw back some of the lost charges (which you can generally do up to several months after the fact).
I don't spend any healthcare money at the hospital. It's all all providers office, private clinic, etc.
It costs $300 for my primary care doctor to see me for about 7 minutes. An assistant takes my blood pressure, he asks me a few questions about my habits and diet, and then I come back next year.
If I actually need any services, I go to much more expensive specialist, or urgent care facility. A visit there is about $100 and then a couple bucks for whatever prescription they give me.
People tackle hard things for nothing, never mind billions in savings.
How does this work when many/most US hospitals operate as non-profits? Quick search shows the for-profits have operating margins nearly triple your figures. And the non-profits are beholden to the community to provide some level of "freebies" to maintain their status, right? IE, they're aren't really all operating on razor thin margins.
This is a hoot. There is an entire cohort of people who use the emergency room as their non-urgent clinic. This is not a small demographic, it must be at minimum tens of millions of people, if not going above the nine digit mark. They do this because their parents did it, and it's the only thing they know, and their parents did it because it's the only thing they knew, and they did it because their parents did the same. It is a culture that no amount of education and public service announcements will ever change.
Heaping one perverse incentive after another on top of this mess won't change it either, but will almost certainly make things worse for everyone.
>For "less fraudulent billing," a lot of people in the industry believe that Medicare has a large amount of undetected fraud.
My grandpa when he was still alive would have one new fraud story with every visit to the doctor, and he wasn't in great shape towards the end, so this was too many to count, every year for the last few. Diabetic, they ordered him compression socks at one point... a dozen show up instead of the two pair that was ordered. He'd come home and wait for a bill in the mail, and a few days later would see itemization for tests and procedures he never underwent. Over and over and over. He was sharp, argumentative, and as far as I could tell, less confused than most his own age. His experience, I think, wasn't atypical.
The flipside to fraudulent billing is that people that need care are denied. The fraudulent billing was perpetrated by the insurer.
I mean, admin costs at hospitals are ~25%, around half of that is directly linked to billing. Administrative costs in the US (because of course you have the same costs on the other side in the insurance side) are around 30% of cost in general, which is pretty insane.
The lack of regulation around pricing transparency and generally the lack of one-price-per-code (which the government uses to its "advantage" to get lower medicaid/medicare rates for sure) is what has caused this stupid arms race on both sides.
How do we know? The experiment has been done multiple times, all over the world. In the worst case (Sweden), healthcare is a bit short of $5K per capita per year, or around $1.7T. We’ve actually got a nice margin to achieve $1T, even if we remain the worst.
I agree health care reform is hard, though. We have a clear roadmap on how it can work a lot better. But what’s the political path forward?
As someone who’s actually fiscally conservative, single-payer universal healthcare is an absolute no-brainer, but, ironically, the people who call themselves fiscal conservatives will fight it to the death (well, not that ironic — at this point we all understand that, in politics, what groups purport to believe and what they actually believe have little to do with each other).
Somewhere there's a pareto-optimal frontier where one can't possibly save more lives without spending more, or spend less without more people having negative health outcomes ... and the question is whether universal health coverage would be a step towards that frontier (b/c we're all pretty sure we're far from the frontier today). And the fact that plenty of countries have both lower costs and better outcomes through such a system is highly suggestive that it is a more efficient policy regime.
Maybe the big quibble is whether the American penchant for creating corporate givewaways to powerful organizations that lobby politicians would create an especially toxic public-private-partnership monopoly in which the biggest existing private healthcare networks are granted regional monopolies and set crazy prices (or some other dystopian warping of an initially reasonable idea) so costs actually balloon. I do think that would be a risk and so we need to be careful about the specifics of how we implement this.
There's no way a Chairman/CEO would ever reduce the operating margin by just giving themselves and their buddies a raise is there?
The GDP of the US is $32T. Saving $1T will essentially make 3% of the US economy vanish. You don't vanish 3% of an economy without wide ranging repercussion, it would be a crisis similar in scale to that of 2008.
With such numbers we are not "saving money", these are about rebuilding an entire economy, a painful process. So either the effect will be much smaller than that, or there will be riots.
I don't see you complaining that the US military has a low operating margin, so maybe we can just agree that some things are just normal expenses for a population. Which therefore leads to step 2: nationalize every single hospital.
>cutting salaries for doctors/nurses/etc
Considering that over 50% of the money that goes into healthcare is just siphoned off by middlemen, no, just getting rid of these means that your health workers do not have a worse salary.
>But, we're actually in a primary care shortage.
Because people do not even go see their GP since there's a chance it leads to life ruining expenses.
> fewer residents are going into family medicine.
Because they're going where money is. Remove that from the equation, and all you have is a public service with public servants.
>a lot of people in the industry believe that Medicare has a large amount of undetected fraud.
Aside from the fact that "people in the industry" have a financial interest in making you believe Medicare is a net negative, there's a great thing that comes from making healthcare a public service: there's no longer any fraud. And those "fraudulent" expenses you used to have that were costing you millions anyways have just had their costs cut in half.
>Healthcare reform is hard.
It's the easiest thing in the world when you have the amount of money the US does. Healthcare reform isn't a financial or infrastructure problem, it's a political one. Cuba has a working healthcare system despite being under US embargo. Botswana has a working healthcare system. Rwanda has a working healthcare system. Azerbaijan, Sri Lanka, Turkey, Serbia, and the list goes on.
Once you grow the balls to nationalize everything, even a first year economy student could make a plan that works.
(A lot of people are going to be very mad at me about this comment, without having the awareness to understand that this is the inevitable conclusion to, "You wanna play rough, ah?!"ing people's access to life-saving treatment. Please grok that we can preclude any more assassinations by cutting profits and letting people get the care they need.)
-----
It's a n-tuple-whammy. Co-pays and deductibles discourage early diagnoses by preventing most people from visiting doctors for issues that aren't serious. The painful process of claiming the small amounts that would cover preventive care discourage people from getting it even if they've seen a doctor and been told to. Preventable conditions balloon into things that are very expensive and unpleasant. This process takes years though, and there are many, many insurance companies, plus people change jobs and coverage frequently. Odds are, the company denying preventive care won't be on the hook for the heavy costs down the road. If they are, they have ways to wriggle out of it. Also, with more people waiting until conditions get bad before seeking treatment, the whole system consumes more resources to keep people less healthy, on average, than if the system pushed preventive care effectively.
When governments assume responsibility for medical coverage, incentives start to be much less perverse. You pay taxes while you work. You work while you're healthy. So, the government wants you healthy. The government wants to do that as cheaply as possible, so they're incentivized, not just to provide preventive care, but to make sure you take advantage of it. I live in Canada. I have a genetic condition that could cause me problems if I don't get preventive care. One of my relations had those problems, so they tested her and found the problem gene. The government then tasked a genetic counsellor to seek out everyone related to her. I had the gene, so they now book me for the care I need to manage it. I don't have to pay for this. I don't have to fight insurance companies to prove I need preventive care. I just do what they ask me to do and I get to live longer. This is the kind of stuff that happens when the incentives are right.
Insurance companies need to be cut out of the loop entirely. They know they're what's wrong, so they employ expensive lobbyists. Americans need to realize this and start making it an election issue.
_______
EDIT: TIL that preventative and preventive are used interchangeably in the context of medicine, so I changed my very inconsistent use of them to just one.
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article...
And the PE firms getting in to healthcare delivery space will take up that fight too, so they can keep more of what they make.
And, there’s also a lot of people who actually believe we have a superior system because M’urica and Europe is communist or something
Reliable details are hard to come by, but some estimations are that more people in the industry are doing admin tasks than instead of providing care, admin tasks that will be reduced drastically once the industry is streamlined.
Once we get affordable care there will be less people who can... afford.
As individual, you buy basic insurance costing roughly $500/month with a $2500 yearly deductible (LAMal/KVG). Applicants must be accepted even with pre-existing conditions. Post-deductible, you pay 10% co-insurance capped at roughly $800/year (no medical bankruptcy). Insurers operate basic plans as non-profit. They make their profit on optional supplemental insurance (private hospital rooms, extra benefits...) The state subsidizes basic premiums for low-income individuals. A doctor's visit is a $150 minimum, similar to the US.
What was most surprising compared to here in the US is employers pay $0 toward premiums. Funding is entirely decoupled from employment. You don't lose coverage or change plans when changing jobs.
On the negative, basic insurance does not have dental, so dental stuff is out-of-pocket and expensive.
In terms of stats, the US spends 18% of GDP on healthcare vs. 12% for Switzerland and the gain is lower stress too. Not perfect but maybe the best of both worlds.
[1]: If you have the CHF2500/year deductible, premiums are cheaper but you have to pay that amount out of picket before the insurance company reimburses your expenses
There are "problems" but overall it has had a net benefit with poor people who could not afford medical treatment just get it. If you are having an emergency, they just do whatever is needed and you are golden. I know hundreds of people in my neighbourhood who have had surgeries done on "card" and most could not otherwise afford it.
It's $20 to go to the doctor on similar priced insurance in the US.
Your $500/month is just a tax for healthcare. Your only advantage over the US is that it's not tied to employment. Ours is both a tax and a cudgel to force people to work.
We have the worst of all worlds because ours is a tax and a cudgel, but then we also have to pay tax to the state to fund the healthcare for others who can't or won't work. I wouldn't call yours the best of both worlds. It sounds like you're getting fleeced to a lesser extent, but still not great.
I’ll be lucky if I get a specialist for under 500 until I meet deductible of 3k+ for a family of 3. One emergency room visit and we reach it in one or two days.
Same in Germany: private kids' insurance costs a fraction of the one for adults. Apparently it's very unlikely that they require expensive healthcare.
I'm of the opinion that, if your solution requires perpetual majority control of legislative, executive, and judicial branches, your solution is in fact a campaign slogan.
I'm not saying that this is what is happening now, but I am saying that calls for universal health coverage, no matter how correct and well supported, are going to probably face the same obstacles they did last time, so we need new coalitions and implementation proposals if we're going to give it a go again. It has to be different enough that those who would oppose it right after the inevitable pendulum swing do not want to.
Additionally, as somebody who was around pre-ACA, I can not tell you how much better, in every single way, the post-ACA healthcare world is. Pre-existing conditions? Access to healthcare as an individual? These are life-changing possibilities, especially for entrepreneurs.
There's a very clear type of fallacy you are engaging in here that only works in politics: you're taking a vague general idea X, ignoring all particulars, and then lumping an idea Y together as if they identical and that any change in that general direction of Y could ever be different than what happened with X. There's no intellectual rigor or honesty in that sort of thinking, yet it somehow pops up throughout all of politics.
The problem with US healthcare isn't who pays for it, its how damn expensive it is. As always there are multiple factors at play, my list would include corruption, lack of legal accountability/responsibility, and a population that is much less healthy than reasonable.
Go after any one of those and we'd make a lot more headway than trying to ram through a universal, government-run healthcare or insurance program. And yes, such a program could impact the above topics, but it doesn't have to and could make any of them worse.
I think once universal health coverage is established, it amounts to political suicide to try to take it away again.
There are only two realistic possibilities. Get a Republican to propose some sort of national healthcare or have Democrats fully embrace socialized medicine and not give a shit what Republicans say or think. If it gets implemented quickly enough then getting rid of it will be very difficult to do. People won’t give up free at the point of usage healthcare once they try it out.
You mean like overturning Roe v. Wade? Can't ever happen, right?
Essentially, all solutions require addressing the slow-burn civil war, which is today capable of of subsuming any issue. Not a single policy issue can realistically be addressed while the rabid 800lb gorilla is in the room. That gorilla is not Trump, that gorilla is Heritage, Fox News, Koch, et al.
ACA was also predicated on broad participation. As with all insurance, the bigger the pool, the lower the premium. Insurance of any kind is primarily a risk arbitrage business and fundamentally relies on the presence of low risk consumers. ACA was designed with this in mind and made participation in the insurance pool mandatory(whether via the public marketplace, or via private).
Unfortunately for the ACA, the individual mandate was removed in 2017 via Trump's Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which reduced the penalty to $0, while leaving intact the ban on denials based on preexisting conditions(on it's own a good thing). The elimination of the federal tax penalty caused health insurance premiums on the ACA individual marketplace to increase by an estimated 10% annually, as younger and healthier individuals dropped coverage and left behind a sicker, more expensive risk pool.
So, while it's fair to criticize the ACA, you simply can't expect a law to work if it's intentionally altered to engineer the worst case scenario specifically.
Here's the overall timeline
* March 23, 2010: President Barack Obama signs the ACA into law, establishing the individual mandate and its future financial penalties.
* June 28, 2012: The Supreme Court upholds the individual mandate's financial penalty, ruling it a valid exercise of Congress’s taxing power.
December 22, 2017: The TCJA sets the individual mandate penalty to $0. Lawmakers attached the repeal to a major federal tax overhaul package and used the budget reconciliation process that allowed the Senate to pass the measure with a simple majority vote, avoiding a filibuster.
January 1, 2019: The tax penalty officially drops to $0 nationwide, effectively eliminating the financial pressure to participate.
At this point it says more about the state of our democracy than it does about any proposed solution. Even policies widely supported by the American public these days are met with obstructionists who care less about the welfare of the country than they do about scoring and blocking political "points".
I suspect Social Security would have met that definition at one point in time. Perhaps even paid overtime, the 40-hour work-week, etc.
It was a great success for people in my boat(no pun intended)
Describes everything the GOP offers as “solutions.” Theirs tend to strip rights while Democrats tend to provide rights.
We’re still waiting on the GOP’s “concepts of a plan” for healthcare promised on the last campaign trail.
In universal everyone has access to every hospital ? Why would someone go to lower level hospital if they can go to northwestern. Now the acess to best hosptials is gated by a queue?
I am not saying this is right but ppl who already have access to northwestern its in their best selfish interst to oppose universal?
i am just countering the point that "ppl opposing it are merely brainwashed by foxnews or are stupid" . Its no different than ppl preventing outsider kids from going to your school.
You're not wrong at at least for the forseeable future, single payer does seem untenable politically, but I'd argue that dismissing studies like this on the basis that it needs solved before debating it on its merits is circular, because the only plausible political objection to a policy like this is financial. If you reflexively claim that nothing without broad consensus appeal at a given point in time is worth discussing, you're essentially arguing in favor of freezing our public policy to whatever the current public opinion is today. I don't think you need to go very far back in history to see some pretty striking examples of why that would be undesirable.
But the Republicans called the Democrats commies anyway and refused to participate. And that has been their playbook ever since. That is what they are going to do, no matter what we propose.
So we may as well propose actual universal healthcare. But I agree with you that we need to create strong majorities to keep it in place until it reaches the kind of momentum it has in Canada or Sweden and opposition to it becomes a practical impossibility, like opposing social security.
Maybe someday we can have a system where losing health insurance isn't a motivation for not starting a company. Our current system is a complete disaster for entrepreneurial capitalism.
So you'll never vote GOP again. And you tacitly agree with Trump's repeated claim that conservatives will stay in the minority unless they _reform_ election rules -- https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/30/trump-republ.... Vote suppression and the "perpetual majority control of legislative, executive, and judicial branches," is Republican stated aim since the late 60s/early 70s when their party began its creep into permanent minority status
> It has to be different enough that those who would oppose it right after the inevitable pendulum swing do not want to
What does this even mean? ACA was based on a GOP-governor-in-a-blue-state's successful implementation of HCR. Everyone loved it until Obama loved it, then the highly organized GOP minority hated it, fight it, wasted ~20 years claiming insanely to have a better solution they knew they never had nor will have
Back when Nancy's daughter Alexandra Pelosi used to make mini-doc shorts for the intolerable Bill Maher she made one about southern white Americans' opposition to ACA. She interviewed one fellow -- perpetually unemployed, alcohol/drug/legal problems etc -- who came well out of his chest against Democrats, socialism, The Gubmint and all the other typical lefty stuff that Fox News mentors him and so many others on. Then we find out he's on welfare. Then we find out he's on Medicare/medicaid. Pelosi's like "What?? Wait a minute ... I thought you didn't like this government stuff. Why're you all over it" and mans goes "WELL I DESERVE IT!!!"
Let's just call anti-UHC arguments what they are: wet bullshit from private healthcare industry stakeholders and the uninformed partisans who repeat Trumpist mantras
1. It detaches health insurance from the employment market. This means those minimum wage walmart jobs just became more feasible, or any low end job really, since their is no pressure to provide "benefits" anymore. This would seriously lubricate the labor market, because the friction to providing, taking, and changing a job is reduced.
2. It ends a bias for group plans. If you are poor or are a trades worker and need to buy insurance outside of a group plan, you are going to be in an expensive high risk pool.
3. Its a benefit we can fund socially with taxes that will immediately have a positive impact on lower income workers, as well as poorer regions of the country (e.g. red states).
I think it's easy to shout free healthcare as a slogan but I think the important bit is how it's implemented.
I don't think anyone from any country thinks their healthcare system is perfect or even sufficient. It all kind of stinks although some countries it is easier to solve problems with above average money (but not if you are average). We need to fundamentally figure out how to do more with less, automation (AI) could help out a lot here and I don't care about purists who want hand crafted artisanal advice about how they need to lose weight or they will die of a heart attack. But otherwise, a lot of problems exist just due to bad incentives.
US legislators will never, ever, ever put the needs of the people above the needs of corporations, not as long as corporations can wield their massive wealth as "free speech" in the form of lobbying and political donations.
Sounds nice, though.
I would still get private insurance for VIP car but it would cost less than what i am paying now.
We can and should expect a lot out of the people around us and especially the ones who choose civil service.
Our grandparents ended slavery, got votes for women, established a merit-based civil service, fought fascism, passed equal rights legislation, and created the most dynamic large economy in history.
We have problems, too, but we are not powerless to fix them.
It's literally everywhere. So much negativity. Sometimes I wonder how much is enemy action and how much is just depression or some other mental illness.
Indeed. Even as some of the more mainstream methods to address our current problems become less effective, we should be open to other ways change can come about. Among your list, many of those achievements had their roots in various approaches that didn't involve legislators.
His annual compensation was over $10 million.
That's another lie you've been told and believed.
With Universal Healthcare the government just provides the funding. Medical decisions are made by Doctors.
“Thankless job” is a crazy way to describe United Healthcare.
No one cares about insurance companies and their profits?? This doesn’t even make sense, so many people rely on insurance and many stakeholders profit off the American insurance system.
But I suppose they are the party of big business, not the party of business in general.
Oh hi. That is me.
Main problems are elsewhere: doctors gatekeeping the market, lack of transparency when it comes to pricing, regulation making it impossible to compete for smaller players etc.
They don't give any shits about free market economics or struggling entrepreneurs. They care about protecting their own money.
And it isn't about big business; that's the Democratic Party. It is about hoarding wealth and gaining more.
All they'd have to do is cut a few friends (insurers) loose. They'd still even have the power of the contract to reward theoretically productive elements of the new health system in return for kickbacks, and there'd simply be more money sloshing around within government to take advantage of. They could continue to stomp the planet freely, because Americans don't care about anyone but themselves. The upper-middle class post-Obama "left" would evaporate. Give them free state college and they'd start calling Republicans the real left.
Another reminder that the US government spends more per-capita on health care than every country with universal health care, and then the population pays again.
One of the things usually cited to defend this waste of money is the massive excess army of people working in healthcare administration, half of whom are employed to file paperwork and the other half employed to throw it in the trash. Now that they're all soon to be replaced by AIs which will be able to simultaneously file and delete worthless paperwork at inhuman speeds, we can let go of that garbage excuse.
But in a more sane world the Republican Party would simply acknowledge slavery as being a real debt owed, and stop being racist, without changing anything else. Most black people are socially conservative Christians, and it would instantly become another God-Emperor situation. Democrats haven't won whites since Kennedy; they gave them entirely up for supporting basic civil rights for black people (an own-goal for the Republican Party, started as a single-issue antislavery party) and big business. Without guaranteed black support (the only other choice black people have to Democrats is not to vote, which is quickly increasing its share), the Democrats wouldn't be a viable party at any level. Republicans are not sane, they are short-termists like everyone else.
Picking out the Republicans is unfair, though. Democrats lobbied furiously and entirely dishonestly against single-payer healthcare in 2016 and 2020. They even tried to sell single-payer and its supporters as racist.
Universal health coverage may save lives and money but this study doesn't provide actual evidence for it.
America: Sounds like communism
Paying 40 dollars for lozenges in the ER is insane.
Right now the system has an opaque pricing structure which makes no sense.
Force hospitals to expose API's with transparent pricing.
https://www.cms.gov/priorities/key-initiatives/hospital-pric...
This is an impossible ask. Truly impossible. The medical care providers have spent the last 50 years or more honing the art of making costs inscrutable. Not really to make it harder for you or I to know the costs, but for the insurance companies to know the cost. 50 years is a long time, that's not just one set of workers who have done this, it's 4-6 career spans now... the first to learn it taught it to their underlings and coworkers, who invented new sophisticated techniques and bureaucracies and taught that to the third career generation, who did the same and so on.
Even if we had universal healthcare, you're not getting rid of that. It's now a culture. A transmissible, everlasting culture.
For any political ask you might come up with, absurd and difficult and even intractable as it might be, this is light years beyond that. God himself couldn't make these prices transparent.
Unless you're uninsured (which is a whole separate clusterfuck), the hospitals aren't the ones who decide how much you pay for any service - the insurance companies are. The sticker price that hospitals charge is almost meaningless and is intentionally high because it's used as the starting point for negotiations, which always bring the price down (never up). There isn't any expectation that any insurer is actually going to pay the billed amount as-is.
Oh yes, and patient/coverage drop rates
Read The Logic of Collective Action by Mancur Olsen. It wasn't written thinking of healthcare. but anyone looking at the US healthcare system will see that what is going on is stacks upon stacks of collective action beating overall societal efficiency, over and over and over again, in such a way that it's basically in none of the decision makers best interest to actually increase overall efficiency.
Without data on what proportion of people are denied and what the consequences are, this isn’t a good faith argument.
On the flip side, cases that would get care in Canada are denied in the USA by private insurance. Private options are far outside the means of most people.
As I understand Medicaid, it would just be open Medicaid for 100% of the US population regardless of the income, remove Medicare (they are now under Medicaid), leave the private sector as it is. Do you think Medicaid is too slow, too low quality, too terrible in general? Pay for private insurance, but you can still go to Medicare if needed.
I'm originally from Mexico. With what I have paid in tax here over the years I can afford to set up and operate my own small hospital over there, with new equipment, this is not an exaggeration.
"Free" healthcare, as with many other free things, turns out to be the most expensive kind of healthcare. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't really know what they're talking about or they're just stupid.
What could work, imo, and since we're all giving opinions here, is private healthcare with a ceiling on profits. Let players take 2x-5x, but not 50x which is what they do now, bring and enforce usury laws into healthcare.
First off, all Canadian provinces are different. Here in Quebec, there is a absolutely a private option. Not everyone likes that it exists, but most people seem to like having that option.
Canadians live better for longer on average (for cheaper healthcare overall). Any other metric is just a misguided attempt to justify the US status quo, which has nothing going for it unless you're rich.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Life_expectancy_vs_h...
While I love the idea of never having to think about health care costs for a variety of reasons, I do like that some services are available to anyone with a wallet and not locked behind government controlled gates.
And nothing will come of it. Too many entrenched interests, regulatory capture, and lobbying + political donations.
In the UK it's about 20%.
Yet apparently the UK is mostly nationalised under the NHS, while in the US there is huge additional spending on private insurance.
Can somebody from the US explain to me how that's the case and why American's still put up with it?
[0] https://aspe.hhs.gov/reports/comparing-prescription-drugs
Maybe extreme but what prevents that entity from becoming the decider regarding who lives and dies?
1) 2 friends had to wait over a year for gallbladder surgery.
2) A friend with autistic child had to wait 2 years for any type of therapy. He couldn't afford the $80k/yr for private care. Ontario has 70,000 autistic children on the waiting list for treatment.
3) Another friend had to wait several years to find a PCP in Ottawa, the capital city of Canada. He has a golf ball sized lump on his head and he can't see anyone without a referral from his PCP but he has none and no one was taking new patients. He put himself on a list to get the first PCP available anywhere in the city. After that he has to wait a year for a consult and who knows when surgery is.
4) Another friend had to wait 9 months to get an MRI for a pain in his neck. After that it was another 4 months to see a neurologist.
You don't pay in money but you pay in time and suffering.
In most of the world it's the policy that cannot be touched, just in Europe, Canada and Australia its _existance_ is invoilable, in the US the _introduction_ seems to be the unwinnable war
The NHS can NOT be meddled with whatsoever.
Complete political suicide.
I can't help but think the picture looks very different now. There is growing awareness that chargemasters can not be secret. LLMs offer a way to overcome the complexity of choosing options, opening doors for real competition. I sincerely hope we can take advantage of this changed landscape to provide better care. Universal health care remains an interesting possible direction, but I now have hope that we can do a lot better within the existing laws.
I support universal health care, but each side just lobs whatever data supports their position at the other without any real thought. Most people in support of a universal health care system seem to be completely unaware that the vast majority of households are happy with their current coverage (whether they should be or not isn't relevant really) and are not looking for someone who claims to know better to "improve their medical care" through a entity (the US federal government) that is generally not known for improving almost any situation it interacts with.
I personally would like to see Medicare opened up to the public as an option. It's simple, doesn't require anything of anyone who doesn't want to participate, and should be a reasonable test for the claims of cost savings. If it's truly a better option, people will move to it. If not, then the conversion will not happen.
Barring some sort of catastrophic financial or medical event, there is a 0% chance that anyone can make a radical change to the status quo.
1) how much cost comes from "friction" like middleman, administrative bloat, shitty digitalization/note sharing, all the time the nurses and doctors have to spend on paperwork... Etc.
2) how much drug development is subsidized by the US patient via higher domestic vs. foreign pricing. Or even how much of the cost total is drugs?
3) how much roughly every added year of life past some marker of "high quality of life" is spent just keeping people alive. And if there's any trends there, cost going up or down total and per person.
4) some basic accounting of where the spend is actually going. A lot of people in this thread are talking about hospital margins. There's much more to health care than that. Labs, hospice, mental health, labs/diagnostics, drugs, r&d, nursing facilities and many things I probably don't even know about.
Basically an equivalent of david mackays "without the hot air" but for health care.
Also if anyone has some good reading on ideas around kind of SEZs for drug/treatment development where people opt in to riskier care. Not quite the same thing but I know for example that lots of medical device development and proving is done in spain to gather evidence for the FDA since the FDA process for devices is legitimately insane.
Oh and if there has been any proposals or even adoption of better health record management, digitization. Especially access to your own health record. Im not a crypto guy but it seems like maybe it could be an application for it?
And then ICU/end of life. Way too many Americans don’t ever talk about what will happen when they die and what they do or don’t want at the end of life. Then they become incapacitated, family pursues all advanced therapies because they don’t know what to do and they spend a long time in the ICU getting things done for an unclear goal
No politician is going to want to deal with the fallout of massive layoffs or millions of people having their coverage changed (e.g. no free chiropractor appointments or GLP-1s for weight loss), especially since the Democrats suffered one of the worst Congressional losses in US history the year the ACA was passed. There are ways to make this transition less painful, but the only people interested in health policy are those who make money from healthcare, so you generally only see solutions that involve throwing money at the problem. We need regular people to develop an understanding of health policy or else we'll end up with a policy that merges the worst parts of a planned economy and capitalism even more than today.
Doctors see downsides of a universal coverage are mostly about loss of autonomy and increased demand because when care becomes free demand rises along with pressure to expand access without extra staff.
[1] https://petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2022/03/15/ama-scope-of-p...
The way that universal health coverage saves money is by rationing care. You do not save lives when you ration care.
> private equity acquisition was associated with a 25.4% increase in hospital-acquired conditions, which was driven by falls and central line–associated bloodstream infections
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10751598/
> Medicare beneficiaries in the emergency departments of private equity hospitals experienced seven additional deaths per 10,000 visits after acquisition relative to hospitals that were not acquired by private equity, the team found. This rise represented a 13 percent increase from a baseline of 52 deaths per 10,000 visits
https://hms.harvard.edu/news/deaths-rose-emergency-rooms-aft...
Cuba has one of the highest doctor-to-population ratios in the world—roughly 6 to 8 physicians per 1,000 people: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/r468au/oc_...
Alas...
The real question is then: since corruption seems to be everywhere, which system is the most resistant to it in terms of the price + quality for the end user.
And the real real question is: what can be done so that every country has a political class that has the same strict rules of law for corruption etc... as Singapore does?
Real lives don't factor into their decisions, even if there are more than enough to fill a large city in this country - every year.
2) I believe the U.S. is willing to go to greater lengths to save people. So they will spend obscene amounts of resources keeping a cancer patient alive for an additional six months, or saving a borderline case of a premature baby, etc.
I'll pass on mandated, outlaw-private-insurance government healthcare, thanks.
The UK has a single payer healthcare system but folks may purchase (or obtain through work) private insurance.
1. This means large new taxes for everyone. For those on lower incomes, they might end up better off. For those on middle-upper+ incomes, they will unequivocally end up paying more.
2. The U.S. already has unbelievably high deficits and debt. This would make that worse without significant spending cuts elsewhere, and without very large new taxes. And before someone says "just tax the rich!", even if every billionaire in the U.S. had all their wealthy confiscated today, it would barely cover U.S. federal spending for *one year.* Then the party's over and the government collapses. "Just tax the rich" is an absurdly superficial position. European taxation is broad and deep. Everyone pays high tax - even those who do not earn much.
3. U.S. society is built on rugged individualism. Acceptance of immigrants under the premise that they will work hard and contribute. For this reason, U.S. success at integrating immigrants is better than anywhere else in the world, by a wide margin. Our issues re immigration in Europe are numerous and unbelievably contentious. Should the U.S. become a "welfare state," like European countries, it would no longer have a natural filter for immigrants. It would realise the type of immigration that we get in Europe, where for many groups, a majority refuse to work - for life. For this reason, it would require a MUCH tougher filter on immigrants - much more so than what the current administration is doing.
I do not see the U.S. materially reducing spending in other areas, including the military. I do not see general public support for large taxation increases across the board. I do not see public consensus on strict new immigration requirements and enforcement. For these reasons and more, I do not think public health care is a realistic prospect for the foreseeable future.
If the US could spend healthcare dollars as efficiently as the UK, the US could pay for a single payer healthcare system covering every resident using only existing Medicare + Medicaid spending.
Is the US willing to reduce the price of healthcare? I observe a large appetite in congress to increase the visibility into US healthcare spend. I observe rather more limited effort spent to use this data to reduce the aggregate costs (e.g. negotiating drug prices [1]).
The math:
The US spends $2 Trillion dollars on Medicare + Medicaid a year [2][3]. $2 Trillion dollars / a population of 342.7 million [4] = ~$5800 per resident per year.
NHS (UK's universal healthcare system) costs ~£3,500 or ~$4800 per person per year [5].
[1] https://www.kff.org/medicare/key-facts-about-medicare-drug-p...
[2] https://www.cms.gov/data-research/statistics-trends-and-repo...
[3] https://www.kff.org/medicaid/medicaid-financing-the-basics/#...
The number of politicians that conflate healthcare and health insurance (notwithstanding the actual convergence of the two through payers’ purchasing provider entities) is mind boggling.
Striking the word “healthcare” from the conversation would make this much more digestible for folks afraid of the “socialism boogeyman”…
But the bigger problem is the current system is really profitable for the millionaire and billionaire owners of those companies. They're well connected in Congress. Attempting to change the system is extremely difficult when it means so many rich people might lose their gravy train. These people go to expensive campaign dinners. Even when the ACA came out and the first versions had universal healthcare provisions those were quickly and quietly eliminated.
* Billing and claims management
* Compliance
* Customer service
* Operations
* IT
You can drive billing all the way down to zero and you're still going to be spending a lot of money on administration just like any large enterprise does. Those jobs aren't really "corporate welfare" and they exist in every system, although the single-payer systems get a bit of a break on them because they can and do trade responsiveness off for customer service (at likely little cost to outcomes, to be fair!)
Inappropriate application of capitalism. A market failure of epic proportions.
Do something about it! You live in a democracy, act like it!!
It has to be one of the most bureaucratic and paperwork overloaded systems of all time. It's hard to imagine somebody who've had an actual health crisis would think otherwise, unless they can afford people who can shield them from the BS.
/sarc
"Fewer avoidable emergency department visits and hospitalizations" -- sheer optimism. "Less fraudulent billing" -- no reason to believe this would be true. There could be even more fraudulent billing! Medicare fraud has been a big problem, and solutions are largely reactionary.
Did you notice the gorilla walk by? They sure didn’t.
get rid of medicare etc, then let it be handled on a city / state level. if some states wanna provide for public hospitals clinics - let them do so. even more if cities too wanna provide for public healthcare. then we can gladly reduce taxes too. the amount spent on medicare vs outcomes is already scam level.
trying to solve this at a national level won't work - too many middleman, too much politics and perverse incentives.
This is why almost every wealthy country and most middle income countries and many poor countries have universal health Canada,UK, Australia, almost every European country, Cuba, Costa Rica, Kyrgyzstan, Sri Lanka, and Rwanda.
There are a few minor weird oligarch run kleptocratic exceptions like America, but in the global context they are irrelevant.
Universal health care by country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care_by_count...
A lot of people do not want it, and you've thus far failed to make them want it.
Taxes here are high. They pay for a lot of things. Is it the best of the best? No. There’s private insurance for that. But does it work? Yup. And it’s just another thing we don’t think or care about while we take all of August off. ;-)
DOGE 2.0 will destroy it overnight
because somehow funding is not exempt from executive manipulation
look at what they did to ACA (and everything else)
all it takes another apathetic Congress and poof it will be gone so billionaires can get a few million off their taxes
there's absolutely no way to harden it against that
Also - given the rate of AI progress, shouldn't we see this cost go to zero essentially.
Just think, if we had universal health care in the US today, the MMR vaccine would not be covered by it!
The USA spends the equivalent of about $10 per citizen per year on Israel. Medicaid spends about $10,000 per recipient per year. But antisemite math has its own rules.
I'm not opposed to a peaceful transition, but we'll need a big surplus and more idealism to make it happen.
Do away with the finance ledger.
Accurately measure where the people are.
Ensure enough resources flow there.
Special interests with a social moat to protect can pound sand or be hung from ports as a warning.
I would like to be free from hallucinated social belief Jeff Bezos is meaningful to humanity when mfer just gonna die and be forgotten like everyone else.
The truth is once systems like this are implemented they change the dynamics of the study and as such could hurting lives.
As a simple example, the biggest cost to the healthcare system in the US is dialysis. Many of those folks already have health issues, and by both dialysis and for all the issues that caused the need for dialysis in the first place is a massive strain. The direct cost of dialysis is $33B annually [1], but indirectly is probably at least another doubling.
Further, the way the government has imposted monopolies in the space already has caused costs to balloon. While making it "universal" could mean the government gets control, and can limit the explosion. It can also could result in weird incentives like Canada, where they're promoting MAID.
That's the only thing that matters in Amerika.
https://www.cato.org/blog/who-will-pay-democratic-socialisms...
Quantify the impact on productivity
This is the harsh reality. No system (private or public) can save all of the lives.
We are debating who will make the decision of who gets to get a chance to live longer.
The attempts by the current republican admin to seize control of certain 'illegal' bodies has caused so so much harm, I'd agree there. But even operating at 10x the nominal level of the past and ICE still haven't been able to exert temporary control over a single American city that resisted them, much less everyone in America.
You should figure out specifically what you are scared of and deal with that, rather than catastrophizing about things that cannot physically happen on any near timeframe.
Because none of the things you said have ANYTHING to do with "universal healthcare" and everything to do with "bad actors worming their way into positions of authority to enrich themselves". Surly you can't believe that "let every induvial person figure it out themselves in an unbalanced capitalist system" is a better answer, right? This isn't just about "if too many people are in the system then MY healthcare quality goes down", right?
My country has universal public healthcare, and nobody forces you, or even your children to get vaccinated, monitors what you eat, or any other form of control that you're worried of. Organ donations are voluntary too, you can opt-out easily. And if you think the system sucks, nothing prevents you from taking extra insurance and using whatever private healthcare provider you want.
We are so desperate that someone murdered a Healthcare CEO - ie resorting to violence
We are so desperate that many is (myself included travel to cheaper countries for dental and other healthcare)
Its a simple calculus but one that is obtuse to conservatives and richer people
reply1: "The alternative is bad, and Trump is evil" reply2: "Uhhh, source for that? /reddit" reply2a: "I bet he subscribes to the wrong politics" reply3: "Americans are idiots" reply4: "I bet you have a personality disorder" reply5: "You're dumb but I'm not going to expound" reply6: "WTF dude" (proceeds to uphold a murderer as an example)
Can no one explain why the ideas the OP fears will not come to fruition? Can anyone explain the safeguards of the UHC system? Or do discussions about policy now all fall under the teamsport known as modern politics?
Is this what hackernews has become? It wasn't like this a decade ago.
We're talking about families that are provably not lazy or sucking up handouts: taxpaying citizens with beautiful, healthy children. The job creators and professionals driving America, securing their future and their children's future.
If the government were to focus on these first-class citizens, who knows what could be accomplished once the drag is taken off the system of the useless eaters and the welfare queens.
> Medicare available for free for households making over $100,000 annually
Sure, why not try it? It's still 50% of America getting coverage.
After a few years maybe they'll realize that not having to think about health care insurance is a good thing actually (tm) and start supporting it for lower brackets of the population too.
"Jeffries co-sponsored Medicare for All legislation between 2013 and 2021, but in August 2026, he stated he shifted his stance and stated that he no longer supports or co-sponsors the proposal." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakeem_Jeffries#Healthcare
Also, ~150M people with employer coverage plus seniors on Medicare fear disruption more than they value expansion.
Many Democratic politicians are moving away from progressive positions, including Ocasio-Cortez. They seem to be following the old (and failed) Democratic Party tactic of moving to the center to get elected.
You need to pay rock bottom wages to doctors to make it work, so guess what all the good doctors leave for private healthcare and you end up with the dregs from the third world.