We cannot just match them, we won't.

Every nation that has implemented any version of single payer has dramatically lower admin costs. If we adopt the system then there will be a drop in admin costs

We are not every other nation, costs are different. Admin costs will fall but at best to 6%, **at best**.

You can't compare across other countries, especially when the systems are totally different.

You did say this
> What is your system
A full private, market based system.

@sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ Why

@sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ Not any gov intervention?

Well I believe it's the most efficient: low wait times, high quality and low spending. All without higher taxes, high government spending.

To your question, gov intervention is the main reason why prices are currently high: regulatory burdens and taxes raising costs. Naturally there would be *some* intervention, but much lower than now.

Sorry I think you misunderstood, why can’t the US get under 6% when so many other single payer nations have

The UK for example is at 2%

@sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ to your point about gov intervention, then why are costs so much lower in countries that have single payer healthcare systems

The costs and ways the healthcare systems are run are different, to what I said:
> The study naively assumes that because Medicare has 2.2% of its expenditures being overheads while private insurance has 13%, we can assume M4A will match 2.2%. But Medicare and Private have different costs, Medicare also piggybanks of the social security system, FBI, DOJ etc deflating their costs on paper.
>
> Also the reason why it's 2.2% is partly because healthcare expenditures for those on Medicare are very high, so this reduces the denominator in the division.

The US which has objectivly some of the least interventionist policies in the world also has some of the highest prices

> to your point about gov intervention, then why are costs so much lower in countries that have single payer healthcare systems
We need to classify which countries, every country has a vastly different system.

> The US which has objectivly some of the least interventionist policies
This isn't true, there are A LOT of regulations in the healthcare market.

It's one of the most if not the most regulated market in US.

@sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ Really? the US is pretty much the only country in the developed world that doesn’t at least offer a public option

Yes true, but the systems vastly differ in other countries. The chart above is illustrative of my point.

@sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ I agree there are different systems but each one is dramatically cheaper on a per capita basis

Indeed, but remember what I said:
> -If you're looking at per capita spending by country keep in mind the US will naturally have a disadvantage as: it has much more health problems than the other countries, i.e UK and a higher income.
> -Higher income causes healthcare expenditures to be higher, not a bad thing.
So US healthcare expenditures will naturally be higher than other countries for these reasons, but we can reduce them if we commit to deregulation.

The systems in the world that do the best are the more market based systems, i.e Switzerland; Germany; South Korea; Netherlands

@sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ And how is it unreasonable to assume thag if current medicare admin spending is 2.2% if it’s expanded to the general population it’ll stay 2.2%

Because everything changes, and the costs on paper are lower than they seems:

(The quote box)

@sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ No, I already mentioned how the US actually doesn’t have significantly more health problems so that’s not the cause of it, and even if you consider incomes the US still comes out far ahead. The US only has a marginally higher income yet per capita healthcare spending is double

*compared to the UK

Ok, so first of the US has the highest obesity in the world, much higher than the developed world. It also has a very large disease burden compared to other countries, meaning spending is higher.

> The US only has a marginally higher income yet per capita healthcare spending is double
The US' GDP per capita PPP is roughly 68k - much higher than the other countries and UK. So this explains a significant part of the spending per capita.

These two factors don't explain all of the high spending, like I said regulations is one of the main reasons why spending is higher (as prices are higher).

@sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ Nope, with the study I sent earlier, the US actually has lower physcian visits

https://international.commonwealthfund.org/stats/annual_physician_visits/

Physician visits =/= healthiness.

Americans don't go to the doctor *as much* due to cost; low labor supply of physicians (regulations have caused this)

But yeah, the US' high income pretty much is one of the driving reasons

Since you keep bitching about PPP

https://medium.com/@GregCampNC/enlightened-self-interest-and-the-healthcare-debate-20ef0d94b032

Yes the reasons for the large spending:
1. High income
2. Obesity and disease burden
3. High regulatory burdens and intervention

If we didn't have the top 2 spending would be lower, but not having the top is stupid (of course).

https://www.vox.com/a/health-prices

It’s not due to that it’s overspending on mainly prescription drugs and admin

And as I’ve shown with the amount of annual physican visits, America isn’t uniquely sick

And with the other article I sent that accounted for PPP, America still spent way more

And how would no intervention make it any cheaper