Similar to the above Yale analysis, a recent publication from the Congressional Budget Office found that 4 out of 5 options considered would lower total national expenditure on healthcare (see Exhibit 1-1 on page 13)
None of this should be surprising given that the US’s current inefficient, non-universal healthcare system costs close to twice as much per capita as most other developed countries that do guarantee healthcare to all citizens (without forcing patients to risk bankruptcy in exchange for care).
The problem I see as European is that your services are heavily overpriced to the level of a scam (hundreds of USD for IV?) and the attitude of “I don’t want to pay for some junkie” is prevalent. In Europe we simply accept the cost because it’s “built in”, you can’t escape it, everyone pays it one way or another at some point.
I'm on Medicaid and live in one of the 38 states that expanded coverage in the last few years. I'm moving to one of the other 12 states that chose not to expand coverage. I'm not sure what I'm going to do for healthcare. The federal gov. is throwing tens of billions at these last holdouts as an incentive to expand coverage. There is no longer a financial excuse these states have for denying these services. We'll see if the incentives work. In most of these states the GOP has a total lock on power. Here's an interactive map that shows where each state is on expansion.
ILikeScience3131 on April 11st, 2021 at 11:55 UTC »
The evidence is overwhelming that single-payer healthcare in the US would result in better healthcare coverage while saving money overall.
Taking into account both the costs of coverage expansion and the savings that would be achieved through the Medicare for All Act, we calculate that a single-payer, universal health-care system is likely to lead to a 13% savings in national health-care expenditure, equivalent to more than US$450 billion annually (based on the value of the US$ in 2017).33019-3/fulltext)
Similar to the above Yale analysis, a recent publication from the Congressional Budget Office found that 4 out of 5 options considered would lower total national expenditure on healthcare (see Exhibit 1-1 on page 13)
None of this should be surprising given that the US’s current inefficient, non-universal healthcare system costs close to twice as much per capita as most other developed countries that do guarantee healthcare to all citizens (without forcing patients to risk bankruptcy in exchange for care).
Komrath on April 11st, 2021 at 13:57 UTC »
The problem I see as European is that your services are heavily overpriced to the level of a scam (hundreds of USD for IV?) and the attitude of “I don’t want to pay for some junkie” is prevalent. In Europe we simply accept the cost because it’s “built in”, you can’t escape it, everyone pays it one way or another at some point.
Gladys_Kravitz_ on April 11st, 2021 at 14:08 UTC »
I'm on Medicaid and live in one of the 38 states that expanded coverage in the last few years. I'm moving to one of the other 12 states that chose not to expand coverage. I'm not sure what I'm going to do for healthcare. The federal gov. is throwing tens of billions at these last holdouts as an incentive to expand coverage. There is no longer a financial excuse these states have for denying these services. We'll see if the incentives work. In most of these states the GOP has a total lock on power. Here's an interactive map that shows where each state is on expansion.