The Indiana data point for this was only two years of study, a decade ago 2007-2009, and crossing the very exceptional 2008 recession year. This is a questiona

The Indiana data point for this was only two years of study, a decade ago 2007-2009, and crossing the very exceptional 2008 recession year. This is a questionable time period to claim proof of savings on health care costs. The Singapore cost savings example is attributed to silver bullets of price tags and deductible scheme while completely ignoring that most care in Singapore are delivered via government owned corporations of hospitals & clinics that service 70-80% of the population. Drug prices for example are controlled essentially by government boards nationally negotiating prices with vendors. This too is ignored in the marketplace article and seems fundamental to making those silver bullets viable. I would submit that the fundamental control of pricing at work here is that the 20-30% private care needs to compete with a basic competent and majority publicly provided care delivered at gov't negotiated prices. The financial structuring of how the care is priced to the user base is a far far lower contributor to Singapore care being 75% less than the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Singapore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Singapore https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/25/15356118/singapore-health-care-system-explained https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/25/15356118/s... Edit: I would also say that it's a nice trick to keep some small component of private care boxed into an area where it has to compete on fundamental effectiveness. This allowance I think is a nice way to accommodate some level of private innovation maybe helping to keep a public only system from becoming too stolid.