Is there a reason a higher GDP should mean radically higher healthcare costs? I mean labor costs would go up, but aside from that?

I am not claiming that the US could provide the same standard of care that people with good insurance get for under $300/month. I am saying that that figure is not outrageously off the mark. And we're not comparing apples with apples here because the plan you're talking about comes with big deductibles etc, right?

That figure would still be vastly higher than what any other country spends on healthcare, btw.

Yeah, 300% higher than your quoted figure. Suddenly it doesn't seem so worth dismantling our current system.

No it still seems worth spending that much on health care for all. We could even get trickle down raises from the money companies save. I kid they would keep the money.

So why does healthcare in the US cost so goddamn much? What is your plan for fixing this?

My plan starts with "let's make the government single-payer and then they will be empowered and incentivized to find out what the hell is going on and get costs down".

I agree that if Bernie (or Warren or another progressive) gets the most votes/delegates in the Democratic primary and does not win the nomination due to deal making at a brokered convention, Trump becomes the favorite in the general barring other major events changing that.

It would splinter the party so much worse than in 2016.

Unregulated drug prices and (arguably) excessive end of life care (and long shot surgeries in general) account for most of the difference. Put bluntly, if we provided Japanese/European level of end of life care, do some kind of QALY to eliminate some of the most expensive surgeries that don't yield a lot of expected life, and instituted some kind of price control on drugs, most of the difference between 6k/capita expected (relative to GDP) and 10k/capita (what we actually pay) would disappear.

Other culprits that have been IDed:
Unhealthy living habits (food and lack of urban walking)
Higher costs of medical education (takes more time and money to become doctor in US)
Relative lack of alternative care providers (think nurse practioners and so on)
Highly specialized doctors that are best in world (this does two things: they understandably charge more and new doctors try to go into these specialities, further constraining supply at primary care level)
ER driving up costs and uninsured population delaying healthcare. (This one is surprisingly mixed. Surprise ER bills ruin people but overall contribute relatively little to rising costs, but probably because the ridiculous ER bills are in part to compensate for other factors already mentioned. People keep trying to show this matters a lot but they aren't having much success. But socially, it's obviously important.)

There are a few other things but these are the main ones that are studied the most. Insurance has also been IDed but empirical studies (there have been lots), even ones that lean left, show they account for relatively little of the difference between the ~6k/capita we'd be expected to pay as % and the ~10k/capita we actually pay. The biggest culprits are still end of life care and high drug prices.

Yeah, God forbid we save a minimum of like 10% while also covering more people with better care. But **** the poor people who are currently uninsured, am I right?

By the way, it's worth noting that the $32 trillion over 10 year price tag includes dental, vision, mental health care, reproductive health care, substance use treatment. It's more generous than single payer systems in effect in other countries.

In other words, under the Bernie Sanders Medicare-for-All plan, we'd save about 10% on costs while providing everyone coverage and providing very good coverage at that.

We could thus save a lot more money with a plan more in line with other developed nations.

Labor is biggest component but other typical fixed costs like rent are also highly correlated with GDP/capita.

Just go look at any plot of GDP/capita vs. healthcare/capita. It's nearly a straight line. US, depending on which dataset you use and how you deal with outliers, should be spending around 6k/year but actually spend 10k. Rest of the OECD (especially if you take out tiny nations like Luxemberg) is pretty much right on the line.

It really doesn't matter what the mechanism is. Fact is healthcare spending rises with GDP.

If there is one issue i found trump voters like its universal health care. Dems need to hammer that.

It's really weird people like inso0 and to an extent griz are surprised that Healthcare costs are exorbitantly higher in a country trying to squeeze profits out of the system vs countries trying the opposite approach.

The healthcare stuff is a derail so I started a new thread; pls come join me here if you would like to continue.

Advancements can cut costs.

You are way off. I have 100s of feminist friends ( dated 2 Emmanuel Collage hotties) who would have been depressed for months if Hillary lost to anyone. Sure the dream was shattered but for many it was as simple as Hillary getting a fork stuck in her.

Why do people respond to Inso?

I wish they could just do the primary now so I could know who I'm going to have to get behind after swallowing hard. I'm all in on Bernie, but if Kamala is the other option to Trump, I'm voting for Kamala. It just might take me a minute to come to terms with that.

Is it really though?

These are the dudes who want to cut 3 billion checks for any Bezos type.

Because 10% is a suspect number, and enough people have decided that they aren't willing to turn over 100% of the control over their healthcare to the government to potentially shave a couple of points off the cost.

Also, who are these currently poor uninsured people? If you aren't covered right now, it must be by choice. It has never been easier to obtain subsidized healthcare coverage than it is today.

“If you aren't covered right now, it must be by choice.” deserves rainbow text treatment.

“If you aren't covered right now, it must be by choice.” deserves rainbow text treatment.
“If you aren't covered right now, it must be by choice.” deserves rainbow text treatment.
“If you aren't covered right now, it must be by choice.” deserves rainbow text treatment.
“If you aren't covered right now, it must be by choice.” deserves rainbow text treatment.
“If you aren't covered right now, it must be by choice.” deserves rainbow text treatment.
“If you aren't covered right now, it must be by choice.” deserves rainbow text treatment.
“If you aren't covered right now, it must be by choice.” deserves rainbow text treatment.

I mean, who doesn't have a driver's license, amirite?

About 50-70% of American poker players when trying to sign them up for Intertops after Black Friday. About 95% had no passport as well.

What do you think the correct % of passport ownership to be?

Did you just miss the joke or something tho

♀️ 2020!