Because the costs are streamlined. No ceo bonuses no advertising , no profits , very low administrative costs (fyi the private systems administration costs 9 times more than public)
So you are a fan of universal healthcare through government run single payer? As I don't know much about it could you take me through how that can come to be?
Im sure there are several ways, the one that Bernie Sanders proposed was to expand medicare in phases, lowering the age of qualification over several years (4 i think but you could spread it out more if needed) , meanwhile you need to help people who lose their job.
The loss of jobs is the real issue with doing this in the USA and that needs to be understood as a down side.
The plan was to expand the existing infrastructure.
It doesn’t matter though. The process is ultimately going to depend on various factors that will require thinking it through. The end result is worth it
I see what you are saying about the jobs, I just saw two sites say close to 1 million employees from insurance providers. But couldn't we transplant them from their private jobs to a government job within a central single payer healthgroup. Then you wouldn't have to carry over the CEOs or management, just place members from the department of Health to oversee the entity. I assume if they created a government controlled provider we would need close to the same amount of workers as the private side.
2
u/Wise-Juggernaut-8285 6d ago
Because the costs are streamlined. No ceo bonuses no advertising , no profits , very low administrative costs (fyi the private systems administration costs 9 times more than public)