Why wouldn't insurers argue for better prices now?
Even in our own VA system, their negotiated prices are lower for drugs than the Medicare part D program, barred from negotiating (and with large pieces managed by private companies).
I think your skepticism should primarily be directed to wondering if private systems can ever negotiate a fair price in healthcare products and services.
The rest of the OECD has universal healthcare, but not necessarily fully public healthcare (the model vary considerably.)
Which just means that there are lots of good proven models that the US could adopt.
https://ourworldindata.org/the-link-between-life-expectancy-...
The most recent life expectancy numbers are the hardest to interpret, the US has the only three-year-running negative life expectancy growth in the first world nations - but some argue we should separate healthcare from the suicide numbers that are a big contributors. I don't know that I agree with that as there is a fuzzy line between healthcare and social care efforts.
Age-adjusted all-cause death rate is the better stat for measuring life-saving outcomes.
Child mortality is certainly a useful stat for its purpose, though.
Are there sources of that stat over time and between nations that you would recommend?
http://apps.who.int/gho/data/view.main.1360?lang=en
It probably still supports the point you are trying to make, I just get grumpy about statistic selection.
I think "only (any large organization) can negotiate a better price" is a little misleading on the surface. On a macro level it should, in theory, be true, and should already be happening with private insurers; when I've looked at my own EOBs, they consistently will list a service, a coding, a billed price, an "allowed" price that is always much less than the billed price, and the amount paid (which predictably matches the "allowed" price). And yeah, when we're watching politicians pontificate, we end up having strong opinions about the total price of healthcare and its effect on the economy.
That said, does anyone _really_ make personal healthcare decisions based on the macro effect on the economy? I personally doubt it.
I posit that the vast majority of US citizens and residents wouldn't care if the annual healthcare spend changed by US$200 million, but any individual American cares A WHOLE LOT if you bill them personally for US$100,000 and their insurance doesn't cover it (or much of it).
It seems to me that a much better approach to this entire conversation is "let's drastically reduce the number of Americans forced into bankruptcy because they or their dependent got sick". My own inclination is that that'll require government intervention, because the incentives for a for-profit insurance company are to pay out as little as possible, but I'm open to anything that addresses that problem.
The proposed alternative is to give tremendous power to an organization with less conflicted responsibilities.