The US currently spends about $5 trillion on healthcare. About $1T of that goes through Medicare, another $0.9T through Medicaid, which leaves about $3T. Non-government spending is $1.6T through private insurance, $0.6T out of pocket, and $0.5T charities.
The “universal healthcare would be cheaper argument,” which I believe, is based on shifting that $3T of private payments into government spending and bringing the ~85% efficiency of care by private insurers up to the 98% that Medicare claims. i.e.: eliminating roughly $400 B of insurance company profit. That still requires $2.5T revenue increase, which is about 50% of current revenue.
You’re operating under the assumption that the US Government would pay the same prices that they currently pay via medicaid and medicare as well as the same prices that private pays. That’s not the case. Generally, the US Citizens pay double or more than what citizens in other developed nations pay.
Docs in the rest of the world don’t start with $200k student loans, and nurses don’t start $50k in debt. US medicare for all won’t magically give us Swedish hospital rates.
Agree. I’d love to see someone do a rigorous accounting of any degree program, especially with international comparisions. I once went through a couple of US state universities, and that generally supported the hypothesis of ‘cost of instruction hasn’t changed in 50 years, but burden of payment has shifted from state taxes to tuition,’ but that was based on whatever the schools published as ‘cost of instruction.’ I’d believe that international cost of instruction follows purchasing price pairity, and it seems more expensive in the US because it’s all tuition and no public payment.
Education aside, the USA already solely pays for residency programs. I just don’t see any room for bargaining or negotiations if every hospital is suddenly forced to receive funds for healthcare solely from the federal government or lose practically all business.
The US currently spends about $5 trillion on healthcare. About $1T of that goes through Medicare, another $0.9T through Medicaid, which leaves about $3T. Non-government spending is $1.6T through private insurance, $0.6T out of pocket, and $0.5T charities.
The “universal healthcare would be cheaper argument,” which I believe, is based on shifting that $3T of private payments into government spending and bringing the ~85% efficiency of care by private insurers up to the 98% that Medicare claims. i.e.: eliminating roughly $400 B of insurance company profit. That still requires $2.5T revenue increase, which is about 50% of current revenue.
You’re operating under the assumption that the US Government would pay the same prices that they currently pay via medicaid and medicare as well as the same prices that private pays. That’s not the case. Generally, the US Citizens pay double or more than what citizens in other developed nations pay.
Docs in the rest of the world don’t start with $200k student loans, and nurses don’t start $50k in debt. US medicare for all won’t magically give us Swedish hospital rates.
I geniunly wonder what the total cost looks like. Like does it cost sweden 200k to train a doctor?
Agree. I’d love to see someone do a rigorous accounting of any degree program, especially with international comparisions. I once went through a couple of US state universities, and that generally supported the hypothesis of ‘cost of instruction hasn’t changed in 50 years, but burden of payment has shifted from state taxes to tuition,’ but that was based on whatever the schools published as ‘cost of instruction.’ I’d believe that international cost of instruction follows purchasing price pairity, and it seems more expensive in the US because it’s all tuition and no public payment.
Education aside, the USA already solely pays for residency programs. I just don’t see any room for bargaining or negotiations if every hospital is suddenly forced to receive funds for healthcare solely from the federal government or lose practically all business.