A big democratic talking point lately have been switching to a more universal health care system, which republicans obviously are opposed to due to the increased cost.

However, It's well known that the USA health care system is extremely inefficient. I've seen numerous statistics and studies which show the average cost per individual in the US health care system is drastically higher then many other first world countries.

There are many factors to this, but one of the supposed top costs is administrative costs due to the non-standardized insurances requiring significant overhead to determine what insurance will cover and properly file for it.

A second quoted cost for why government healthcare is so inefficient is the failure to provide a means to negotiate with drug providers to lower medication costs, causing medication to be extremely expensive.

I'm wondering if anyone can point me to any serious studies/analysis of potential cost savings that could come from a single universal (or near-universal) healthcare system's ability to lower these, and similar, costs by standardizing how healthcare is applied, and compared this to the increased cost of covering everyone with a single healthcare system?

I'm looking for detailed analysis if possible, not just speculation. I'm only interested in the cost/savings of such a theoretical system. I'm well ware that there are other arguments both for and against universal health care, but I don't want to get into them with this question. I'm only looking at financial expense to the us government in running such a theoretical system and nothing else.

  • 3
    "failure to provide a means to negotiate with drug providers" this is misleading - Congress passed laws explicitly preventing negotiating with drug providers. – TemporalWolf Dec 30 '19 at 22:42
  • 2
    @TemporalWolf Yes they did, but I didn't want to get too bogged down with those details for fear it would lead to people arguing rather such a policy was right and wrong and distract from the financial question. For now all I care about is that a single payer system would make negotiating drug prices down and how much of a savings that could provide if it happened, without paying attention to minor details such as rather it would ever happen or if everyone agrees such negotiating should occur. – dsollen Dec 30 '19 at 23:02
  • 2
    Why do you not consider this credible? The Eye-Popping Cost of Medicare for All "The Urban Institute, a center-left think tank highly respected among Democrats, is projecting that a plan similar to what Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders are pushing would require $34 trillion in additional federal spending over its first decade in operation." – Just Me Dec 30 '19 at 23:18
  • 1
    Could you expand, perhaps with example, your suggestion that a top cost is administrative **due to non-standardized insurances requiring significant overhead to determine what insurance will cover **? If you are referring to healthcare providers, it has been my experience that the providers staff have the address of the patient's insurer and all doctors are required to use the AMA codes, and lastly, how much is covered is not something the providers are concerned about. However, if you are referring so someone or something else please explain. – BobE Dec 31 '19 at 1:49
  • I wish you would embrace the distinction between health care and medical care. Health care (that is, steps taken to reduce the chance of illness) is pretty cheap, and seldom involves doctors. – jamesqf Dec 31 '19 at 2:21

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .