> It’s not true for single payer systems, who across the world pay less than what we pay in the US. It's also not true for systems with public options, like Ge

> It’s not true for single payer systems, who across the world pay less than what we pay in the US. It's also not true for systems with public options, like Germany. You're making a hypothetical claim about the abstract economic incentives of a public option. But like many such economic arguments, without accounting for the technical realities these arguments have exceptionally poor predictive power. The cost problem isn't about public or private. That much should be clear. Even domestically, if you look at the best run and widely loudly HMOs (e.g. Kaiser, Mayo), which also are more heavily burdened by low-income and sicker patients, their costs are still much greater than what optimists claim can be achieved. Prescription drugs and administrative fees account for at worst 25% of expenditures. The real costs are in the practice of medicine in America: compensation, structure of surgical units, organization of hospitals, treatment recommendations, manufacturing industry, FDA regulations, etc. Single-payer doesn't address any of this directly--at best indirectly, and only if you're really optimistic. Obamacare reforms did try to address some of this (it's why it's gargantuan), but with mixed and often poor success. If you want to fix healthcare, it's these unsexy, complex, and hidden things that need to be addressed. The debate over single-payer is a debate among armchair pundits, which often includes healthcare professionals. (Just like software programmers cargo cult poorly supported ideas about improving the software industry.) Maybe, after accounting for technical realities, an all-private, public option, or single-payer system may be marginally more efficient in the United States. But nobody is making such arguments. The debate is far too abstract, with unsupported, sweeping claims about comparative efficacy.