It’s nice of you to underscore the issue, but I suspect most readers would catch on based on the first line of the article, wouldn’t you?

> As the Democratic presidential candidates argue about “Medicare for All” versus a “public option,” two simple policy changes could slash U.S. health-care costs by 75% while increasing access and improving the quality of care.

I hope so. But HN typically shuts down political articles fairly quickly, and this one made it to the front page and had comments on it as if nobody had noticed, so I thought it was worth a mention.

Is Medicare for all going to be a premium-funded, premiums enforced one like we have in Turkey?

Yeah, these are standard conservative talking points. The best part is they would riot if we actually tried to implement Singapore's health system in the US. In Singapore the government forces you to put a certain percentage of your income into a health savings account, and then the government tells you what you're allowed to spend that money on. You can't use that money to buy a drug that isn't on a special government list, for example. The government also owns most of the hospitals, and most doctors are government employees. Hospital stays are mostly paid for with government subsidies. Drugs are also directly subsidized by the government, but only the drugs that government bureaucrats approve.

But none of that has stopped them from spending decades pretending that transparent pricing is the sole reason why health spending is lower in Singapore.