4 ms·

I don't think that solved the problem of cost, it simply changes who pays for it. Less scarcity, lower barriers to entry, and more competition are what decreas

• JulianMorrison 14y ago
  The NHS forces costs down as a monopsony. Also there is not the separation between provider and payer which results in providers angling for the most expensive treatments, only forced down by a payer who regards the patient as an unwanted liability. (This has been partially subverted in the British NHS by ill advised privatization.)
• astrodust 14y ago
  It absolutely solves the problem of cost. Medicare is an enormous organization and can have enormous influence over suppliers. The prices paid for routine treatments are a single digit percentage of what consumers pay. There's numerous examples in this article about how Medicare pays more reasonable prices for things than anything billed out to consumers. Insurance companies often get the same sort of deals, but they certainly don't pass on the savings.
  • pdonis 14y ago
    There's numerous examples in this article about how Medicare pays more reasonable prices for things than anything billed out to consumers. Yet the article says that the $800 billion a year the US government spends on Medicare is what's driving the federal deficit. So is Medicare part of the solution, or part of the problem?
    • astrodust 14y ago
      Presumably the cost of the services Medicare provides would decrease further if the volume increased under universal care. Secondly, Medicare would be better funded if it was paid into like virtually every other single-payer system. What's driving the deficit is taxes that are too low and military spending that's too high.