Those numbers would be the same if we had universal healthcare. The entire concept of medical insurance wouldn’t need to exist and a parasitic industry would be eliminated, thus massively reducing costs.
The net cost of care would be reduced for everyone it would just shift from a health insurance expense and care expense to a tax expense. This would have a variety of benefits including the elimination of employment based insurance, which speaking from personal experience, can trap you in a miserable career.
The 2 legit arguments against this are the disruption to the economy caused by undermining the need for several Fortune 500 companies and the potential to see a decrease in quality of care. For that latter point, the overwhelming majority of people would likely see an increase in quality since any care > no care.
Edit: this a common thing - the Republican Party hasn’t had any actually fiscally conservative policies in decades. They just have great marketing.
You're assuming that eliminating private insurance automatically makes universal healthcare cheaper, but that's not necessarily true. Hospitals, physicians, medications, staffing, and infrastructure still cost money, and expanding coverage increases demand for services and also costs more money.
Based on the available data private insurance has made everything astronomically more expensive.
If you and I have a business what do you think is cheaper?
A. You and I interfacing directly for all business
B. You and I doing business with an intermediary that profits off of every single piece of business we touch
Eliminating private insurance doesn't eliminate the need for an intermediary. Government still has to collect funding, administer coverage, process claims, and reimburse providers.
-3
u/BoostedClinician 14h ago
You're confusing total healthcare spending with the cost of funding a government healthcare program