The European single-payer systems pay half what we do per-capita, factoring in private and public spending in both systems. The US system is wildly cost inefficient.
See the chart at https://data.oecd.org/healthres/health-spending.htm
I’m not sure why people keep bringing up Europe - the USA is not Europe. For one doctors are paid more in the USA compared to Europe, medicine is more expensive here, more of the R and D originates here, etc
Also, in nearly every parliamentary system the state's ability to quickly invalidate patents by an act of parliament gives them even more leverage in the negotiations with drug companies.
You're already paying for health care coverage via monthly/annual premiums and via reduced salaries where your employer's portion is part of the 'total compensation' you get (but doesn't show up in your pay check).
Even if the amount at the end stays exactly the same it may be an improvement because (a) there are no "in network" worries about going to the "wrong" hospital or getting the "wrong" doctor", and (b) it is universal coverage so (i) you may not have to worry about losing your job and losing coverage as well as (ii) you can change jobs and have the same (universal) coverage.
It'd be a deal even if it costs exactly the same.
"Critics of drug price regulation argue that free market pricing strategies and higher prices in the United States are instrumental to innovation. One might therefore expect the United States to be the most innovative given that it is the only country with a predominantly unregulated pharmaceutical market. However, US pharmaceutical innovation appeared to be roughly proportional to its national wealth and prescription drug spending. Our data suggest that the United States is important but not disproportionate in its contribution to pharmaceutical innovation. Interestingly, some countries with direct price control, profit control, or reference drug pricing appeared to innovate proportionally more than their contribution to the global GDP or prescription drug spending."
> Nationally, the analysis found that individual ACA Marketplace premiums are 10 percent lower than the average employer-sponsored insurance premium, after the adjustments.
(Which makes sense; it's a very large risk group.)
The result for these employees could be more taxes for the same or worse care they’re already receiving.
In aggregate I believe it’s the right move but let’s not act like everyone wins here.
Then require that savings be shared.
Make it a legal requirement that any company that has employer-provided healthcare must rebate employees the premium costs if they opt-out.
If you cut the salaries of employees who opt-out, but not those who don't, you'd be in very clear violation of the law I'm suggesting.
It is not 'for free' it is part of your compensation! It's like saying your employer pays 6.2% + 1.45% in SS/Medicaid taxes 'for free'. That is part of your compensation.
You're already paying for health care coverage via monthly/annual premiums and via reduced salaries where your employer's portion is part of the 'total compensation' you get (but doesn't show up in your pay check).
Even if the amount at the end stays exactly the same it may be an improvement because (a) there are no "in network" worries about going to the "wrong" hospital or getting the "wrong" doctor", and (b) it is universal coverage so (i) you may not have to worry about losing your job and losing coverage as well as (ii) you can change jobs and have the same (universal) coverage.
I don't think that's even a question. The answer is no, they won't.
Spoiler: they won’t. They’ll spin not having to pay a premium as a pay raise.
There's no corruption in Italy? Eastern Europe?