3 ms·

Universal healthcare is cheaper than our system of healthcare by a factor of 2 (comparing other OECD countries). If we raised taxes and implemented universal he

Universal healthcare is cheaper than our system of healthcare by a factor of 2 (comparing other OECD countries). If we raised taxes and implemented universal healthcare we’d save about $1T a year. Cost isn’t the relevant factor, it’s politics. Or more accurately, naked bribery that we, for some insane reason, call “lobbying”.

DarmokJalad1701 7mo ago
> If we raised taxes and implemented universal healthcare we’d save about $1T a year If it saves $1T, then why does it require raising taxes?
- Quarrelsome 7mo ago
  idk maybe those savings are not upfront but are more around productivity improvements and so on.
- mekdoonggi 7mo ago
  Because currently the working population pays what is effectively a tax for health insurance. I pay over $450 a month for a family plan, and that's cheap and subsidized AND I need to pay for copays/deductible/coinsurance. So taxes could go up $5k/yr but if I got health insurance, I'm better off. The savings would take longer to realize because they come from better contracts, better preventative care, increased screenings etc.
- danny_codes 7mo ago
  Healthcare Spending in the US is split across private and public expenditure. Under universal healthcare the public would pay more, but net spending would decrease.
ineedaj0b 7mo ago
I've looked into this for work and no way. You must unfactor the European models getting subsidized by the current US model. Some very smart people have looked at fixing the system, and there's no golden goose (except ozempic maybe). We'll need pharmacological breakthroughs. Also, regrettably - A LOT of medical care is unnecessary but we love grandma.
- Quarrelsome 7mo ago
  > You must unfactor the European models getting subsidized by the current US model. But they don't. This is clearly a pro-insurer talking point. Europe just negotiates on a state based level so therefore is able to negotiate better prices.
  - Amezarak 7mo ago
    Medicare also negotiates on a state based level and represents more people than most European countries. Right now the US governments collectively spend more than most European countries per capita on health care. The states and Feds. Totally exclusive of the private market spending. Expanding Medicare/Medicaid may be great for other reasons but does not solve the underlying cost problems in the US.
    - Quarrelsome 7mo ago
      > but does not solve the underlying cost problems in the US. sure but neither does blaming the EU for its healthcare system as some odd mental gymnastics into twisting it into a rationale about why universal healthcare "isn't possible" in the US. Its a choice the US makes, while creating huge deficits fighting pointless wars at the same time.
  - solatic 7mo ago
    Hypothetically, the amount of money that could be negotiated away is something like the sum of net incomes of US pharma/med device/insurance/healthcare, which is something like $100 billion annually. which sounds like a lot but it's only about 2% of annual $5+ trillion spend. You can't negotiate prices to be lower than the associated costs, the companies will just close up shop instead of being forced to take a loss. At the end of the day, the fundamental drivers of high healthcare costs are (a) high labor costs of high-skilled doctors, pharmaceutical researchers, etc. (b) high cost of procuring land and construction of new hospitals in major metro areas. The first requires you to fix education first so that doctors etc. do not need to take out and later pay back what can now easily exceed $500k in combined tuition and living expenses. The second is politically unpalatable.

DarmokJalad1701 7mo ago

> If we raised taxes and implemented universal healthcare we’d save about $1T a year If it saves $1T, then why does it require raising taxes?

Quarrelsome 7mo ago
idk maybe those savings are not upfront but are more around productivity improvements and so on.
mekdoonggi 7mo ago
Because currently the working population pays what is effectively a tax for health insurance. I pay over $450 a month for a family plan, and that's cheap and subsidized AND I need to pay for copays/deductible/coinsurance. So taxes could go up $5k/yr but if I got health insurance, I'm better off. The savings would take longer to realize because they come from better contracts, better preventative care, increased screenings etc.
danny_codes 7mo ago
Healthcare Spending in the US is split across private and public expenditure. Under universal healthcare the public would pay more, but net spending would decrease.

ineedaj0b 7mo ago

I've looked into this for work and no way. You must unfactor the European models getting subsidized by the current US model. Some very smart people have looked at fixing the system, and there's no golden goose (except ozempic maybe). We'll need pharmacological breakthroughs. Also, regrettably - A LOT of medical care is unnecessary but we love grandma.

Quarrelsome 7mo ago
> You must unfactor the European models getting subsidized by the current US model. But they don't. This is clearly a pro-insurer talking point. Europe just negotiates on a state based level so therefore is able to negotiate better prices.
- Amezarak 7mo ago
  Medicare also negotiates on a state based level and represents more people than most European countries. Right now the US governments collectively spend more than most European countries per capita on health care. The states and Feds. Totally exclusive of the private market spending. Expanding Medicare/Medicaid may be great for other reasons but does not solve the underlying cost problems in the US.
  - Quarrelsome 7mo ago
    > but does not solve the underlying cost problems in the US. sure but neither does blaming the EU for its healthcare system as some odd mental gymnastics into twisting it into a rationale about why universal healthcare "isn't possible" in the US. Its a choice the US makes, while creating huge deficits fighting pointless wars at the same time.
- solatic 7mo ago
  Hypothetically, the amount of money that could be negotiated away is something like the sum of net incomes of US pharma/med device/insurance/healthcare, which is something like $100 billion annually. which sounds like a lot but it's only about 2% of annual $5+ trillion spend. You can't negotiate prices to be lower than the associated costs, the companies will just close up shop instead of being forced to take a loss. At the end of the day, the fundamental drivers of high healthcare costs are (a) high labor costs of high-skilled doctors, pharmaceutical researchers, etc. (b) high cost of procuring land and construction of new hospitals in major metro areas. The first requires you to fix education first so that doctors etc. do not need to take out and later pay back what can now easily exceed $500k in combined tuition and living expenses. The second is politically unpalatable.