[0]. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42950587

That's why Medicare/Medicaid is cheaper per person even though they serve the poor and elderly.

It might seem expensive and wasteful, but it might be better than the status quo.

A few years later, there was a budget crisis and the government cut the pension to a fraction of what was agreed on. But the ex-samurai were too demobilized to overthrow it by then.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_Compensation_Act_1837

We could also drag the obstructionist leeches into the capital and roast them like Jim gaffigan just roasted Karen.

When someone's abusing an entire country you don't pay them to stop, you throw them in jail. People are dying are dying by the truckload and we care about

If you work for a large company it’s pretty much the same thing. Your employer brings a risk pool and then a private insurance company like Cigna quotes for how much it takes to “fill” it while taking their vig.

I would expect the same under M4A: 5 really big insurance companies would continue to cost-plus bill the Feds, and then maybe there would still be a few re-insurance companies to cover stuff M4A doesn’t cover.

In going through her things after she died, I found letters to her bosses about how well she'd treated the plumbers, electricians, etc. I know she would take work home and do it off the clock.

What was really unfortunate, for me, is believing that her job shouldn't exist. To me it's crazy the expenses we have a universal healthcare system.

Of course, that also applies to avoiding taxes, etc. There was an attorney interviewed on a recent podcast about tariffs - he specialized in finding things like shipping bikes from China without tires and the tires from Vietnam would be much less in tariffs than just shipping from China.

Do you have numbers to back this up? I'm not saying you're wrong, but my mom worked for a GP for ~20 years (recently retired) and listening to her talk about it this was not true for her employer at all. She said that in many cases the private insurer paid less, and on top of that required more back and forth to get claims addressed.

I'm not trying to be an ass, just trying to point out that many, many sources all say the same thing.

what do all these people do in the UK, Scandinavia and other countries with single-payer health care?

Eventually, they would join other parts of the economy in the US, but in the short term, the unemployment rate would spike and the economy in general would suffer.

[1] https://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/small-business-2... [2] https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Education/Se...

And if an administration managed to get this through in the beginning of their first term, they'd never get re-elected, and most of the Congresspeople who supported it would be out as well. The next group voted in would dismantle it and put things back the way they were.

Any plan to dismantle the US private insurance industry will need to ensure a very soft, cushy landing for the people employed in that industry, or it'll never work.

The US healthcare system is a Rube Goldberg machine.

    +£2,033 paid per month
    -£  149 national insurance (healthcare, welfare, etc.)
    -£  198 income tax
    =£1,686 take home pay (=$2,224)

    +$4,148 paid per month
    -$  317 social security 
    -$  357 federal tax
    =$3,474 take home pay

$1250 per month should go a fair way to covering health insurance premium, deductible, co-pays & drugs (these are all £0 in scotland)

The real difference, of course, is that taxes will ensure you're covered even if you're low income.

[1]: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/1-in-5-americans-get-hit-w...

For example, Canadians going to https://surgerycenterok.com/

Here is another fact. The above has had transparency in prices since it was founded in 1990

Guess what also has not changed: the price that they charge for every single procedure since they were founded. In fact they technically charge less now because some procedures include additional services that were originally not part of the package.

So why is it that 1 clinic does not need to change pricing in 30 years, while everything else is increasing at 5-10% per year?

Hint: you dont have to throw away the baby with the bathwater. Its possible to have a system that is not going to bankrupt you and also at the same time not make you wait for 3 years for something you need today

Talking to low income folks, it's not the same as in other countries. They still have financial stress because of medical concerns.

Medicaid experience differs greatly depending on the state you're in. And how it compares with people who have the means to buy insurance also varies quite a bit.

There’s certainly variation in who can qualify, per State; some States are more generous than others. It’s debatable whether it makes sense to even consider the US as a whole, since it’s really a heterogenous collection of 50 self-governing sub-cultures. The Canadian healthcare system for eg is also provincial, with the Federal government providing minority financial support. It’s actually more Province-driven than Medicaid is State-driven, today.

Consumer goods made abroad are incredibly cheap in the US in comparison to the UK, but as a Brit living in the US I definitely relate to this observation I recently saw go by:

> As a friend of mine from abroad who lives here put you “you don’t really get that there’s a really high standard of living and nothing works“

- https://twitter.com/__seab/status/1298342388537139200

Still lower, we're a poorer country, but it is quite a difference.

Also consider that everything isn't covered when your employer pays for your health insurance. Americans still have a lot of out-of-pocket costs.

And remember that there are a lot of people who are unemployed or underemployed, or work under arrangements that don't provide them health insurance at all. They also probably make a bit less than the median salary. So sure, maybe 50+% of the US could afford their own health insurance, but is it ok there's some percentage, regardless of how small, that can't afford it and has to do without? I say no.

I have a doctor I see every 4 months. I mentioned to her that I thought my copay probably was about what she was actually making off my visit and she said, 'if that'.

She also said insurance companies are now doing things like not approving full scripts for insulin. And demanding that she prove a 50 year Type I diabetes patient still needs insulin.

It's just about the lowest per capita health expenditure in the developed world.

[1] https://knoema.com/atlas/Singapore/Health-expenditure-per-ca...

An annual primary care visit, cancer screening, vaccinations, and so on. So for example if you have medical need for a colonoscopy, it will be covered before the deductible has been met.

Would the reason be that British teeth are maintained like American waistlines?

This is largely explained by economic differences in the US. The poor have awful tooth health; the wealthy have very good tooth health. In the UK, the poor and wealthy are closer to the median.

https://www.cnn.com/2015/12/17/health/british-american-bad-t...

So I guess that the US is fatter, but the UK is still one of the fattest countries in the world. The BBC claims the UK is getting fatter faster than the US too.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-41953530

http://www.oecd.org/unitedkingdom/Health-at-a-Glance-2017-Ke...

Teeth are probably a myth. People see Americans on TV, of course they do extreme things to make them blindingly white.