Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money

[Cellblock2429]

Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money
By ROBERT H. FRANK at the NY Times

Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money

"SNIP............

Sometimes described as Medicare for all, single-payer is a system in which a public agency handles health care financing while the delivery of care remains largely in private hands.

Discussions of the California measure have stalled, however, in the wake of preliminary estimates pegging the cost of the program as greater than the entire state government budget. Similar cost concerns derailed single-payer proposals in Colorado and Vermont.

Voters need to understand that this cost objection is specious. That’s because, as experience in many countries has demonstrated, the total cost of providing health coverage under the single-payer approach is actually substantially lower than under the current system in the United States. It is a bedrock economic principle that if we can find a way to do something more efficiently, it’s possible for everyone to come out ahead.

By analogy, suppose that your state’s government took over road maintenance from the county governments within it, in the process reducing total maintenance costs by 30 percent. Your state taxes would obviously have to go up under this arrangement.

But if roads would be as well maintained as before, would that be a reason to oppose the move? Clearly not, since the resulting cost savings would reduce your county taxes by more than your state taxes went up. Likewise, it makes no sense to oppose single-payer on the grounds that it would require additional tax revenue. In each case, the resulting gains in efficiency would leave you with greater effective purchasing power than before.

And it saves lives..It is the moral and right thing to do.

/----

 

[Yousaidwhat]

In 2016 the U.S. spent 17.2% of its GDP on healthcare. The other OECD countries were around 10 to 11%.

Health expenditure and financing

And the state of california can't figure out how to fund it. So, what makes you think the entire country would be able to do it? Face it matthew, there are some things that are unaffordable.

ScienceRocks is a Matthew sok ?

He changed his name........something to do with his "transition", if you know what I mean.

The question is...

What did he transition to?

 

[dblack]

In 2016 the U.S. spent 17.2% of its GDP on healthcare. The other OECD countries were around 10 to 11%.

Health expenditure and financing

And the state of california can't figure out how to fund it. So, what makes you think the entire country would be able to do it? Face it matthew, there are some things that are unaffordable.

ScienceRocks is a Matthew sok ?

He changed his name........something to do with his "transition", if you know what I mean.

The question is...

What did he transition to?

I'm transitioning to a gorgeous, steaming hunk of man meat. (pre-op)

 

[dblack]

Work shouldn't dictated whether you live or die...

period

Neither should a Politician.

Work, money - ie the monetary representation of how much the rest of society values what you do, is a far better criteria for someone lives or dies than a ******* vote.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

That's not my understanding. NHS is funded via taxation, isn't it?

Yes it is. You have to pay your taxes like you pay for your taxes in the US. However if you get private insurance in the UK, it'll be cheaper than it is in the US because the NHS is there.

So, you agree that your claim above wasn't true? Under "Universal Healthcare", people are forced to pay for their health care via government. They are not free to finance their health care however they like.

No at all.

People pay taxes. You pay taxes in the US.

The taxes required for "universal health care" are no longer in your pocket to buy alternatives. The money you'd ordinarily use to finance your own healthcare will be reduced by whatever government takes. Unless you are pretty well-off, most people will be stuck, dependent on government for health care. Which is the entire point of this whole charade.

And the taxes required for non universal healthcare are no longer in YOUR pocket to buy alternatives.

Did I not make it clear?

The US spends $956 billion a year on healthcare.

UK Health Care Spending in 2018 - Charts

The UK spends 146.4 billion pounds which is $188 billion a year.

325 million people are $956 billion a year is $2,941 per person
65 million people at $188 billion a year is $2,892 per person

So, in the US you pay your taxes, and don't get healthcare if you're not the right person. In the UK you pay and you get healthcare.

In the US you HAVE TO get insurance, in the UK you can choose to get health insurance.

The difference? The US is more expensive and less choice. Go figure.

You are dodging the point.

The fact is that everyone pays taxes that go towards UHC in G.B.

If you cut that service, everyone's tax bill would go down.

End of discussion.