I'll ignore the flame-bait. I honestly believe that we could reduce regulation and make the poorest better off. I referenced above an example: an Indian hospital has essentially mass-produced procedures for low cost. Things like hip replacements do not take a brilliant surgeon with eight years of medical training; I think breaking the monopoly of the AMA and lowering regulation will allow cheap procedures at prices reasonable to almost all. For those last few, I believe Churches and states ought to shoulder the responsibility. I said nothing of "no health-care", I said that the feds shouldn't do it and that single-payer is a bad solution.
> amend the constitution.
Be careful with amending our founding document to push a policy agenda. This has been rarely done in the past, because if one side does it to suit one agenda, the other will reciprocate once re-elected. Maybe the far left could get socialized medicine, but the right might repeal the 14th amendment birthright citizenship next election.
> Yes, it's the regulations, for sure. Like the ones that keep the air and water clean, and the rivers not-on-fire. And drugs safe. See if we just got rid of that, we'd be in great shape.
What did I say of environmental regulations? We have them to protect the rights of others, and they are important.
With respect to drug safety, I do believe rules could be somewhat loosened, but I also believe some regulation is necessary.
> Even a Koch funded study showed MFA would be +/- 5% of what it costs right now
This is an "alternative fact" pushed by Senator Sanders and Congresswoman Ocasio. [0]
> You take all the money employers are currently spending on employee cover via a combination of payroll and personal taxes, direct it to the Medicare pool and enroll eveyrone.
Americans are generally leery of just "taking the money", "directing it", and "enrolling everyone". That's too heavy-handed an action for the feds to take. I would appreciate a different source for your cost, as the one you mentioned was not correctly represented.
With respect to unit economics, that does not account for quality. Note that the study you cited above mentions the outrageous cost in the abstract. It also mentions that Medicare reimbursement rates are roughly 40% lower than private insurance; where will the extra money come from? That doesn't make the unit economics cheaper, that means private health insurance costs are currently subsidizing low medicare reimbursement rates. The bulk of the "cost reduction" to which you are referring (over 85% thereof) came from provider payment cuts, which assumes the current 40%-below-market rate. That's not better unit economics, that's monopolizing an industry and fixing prices. The remaining <15% came from better drug prices. I will concede that a monopsony tends to lower prices for certain things, but this is not nearly what you claimed.
[0] https://www.factcheck.org/2018/08/the-cost-of-medicare-for-a...
No that's fine, you can tell grandma why she's not going to get that hip replacement or cancer treatment. It's because of your free market principals and she should have made more money when she was young. See, grammy, it says so right here in the constitution - and The Fountainhead!
If only there was a way to update or modernize or uh, what's the word, amend the constitution.
> I proposed something of a solution above: remove the onerous regulations and allow industrialization of common procedures. This would cut out the bulk of health-care expense.
Yes, it's the regulations, for sure. Like the ones that keep the air and water clean, and the rivers not-on-fire. And drugs safe. See if we just got rid of that, we'd be in great shape. You know what would make it really cheap? Let's get rid of medical licensing requirements. Now that's a money saver.
> And how would you pay for such a plan? Even doubling taxes wouldn't do it: https://www.wsj.com/articles/even-doubling-taxes-wouldnt-pay....
That's absurd. Even a Koch funded study showed MFA would be +/- 5% of what it costs right now, but would cover everyone, accidentally showing the unit economics to be much better. [1] You take all the money employers are currently spending on employee cover via a combination of payroll and personal taxes, direct it to the Medicare pool and enroll everyone. This isn't some sort of new wild plan. Other OECD member states do that right now.
By the way, the paper I link is the one the WSJ article cites (your link is broken) and if you read anything past the first page it clearly states that not only would everyone be covered it would cost less per capita and in total. Another study recently showed that Medicare and Medicaid do a better job of controlling costs than the private sector setting us up for success in the longer term, too. [2]
[1] https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/blahous-costs-medicare...
[2] https://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20190211/NEWS/19021...