[dlo]

> How do you convince someone like this that universal healthcare is better for all of us?

Here is one approach.

1) Enumerate the different options.

2) For each option, enumerate the upsides versus the downsides, which includes cost of implementation and operations, along with their likelihoods. Every option has potential downsides -- are we willing to accept them for the potential upsides?

3) Rank the options by expected utility. Which one comes out on top?

Ironically, you may find that universal healthcare is not the top-ranking option or that we have not yet come up with a high-expected-utility option.

[arcticbull]

The WHO and OECD did exactly that and disagree.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_rank...

[2] https://www.oecd.org/unitedstates/Health-at-a-Glance-2017-Ke...

[conanbatt]

That's not utility, but health outcomes.

What I truly don't get about M4A advocates or believers is why they don't tolerate a public option. Just let the state compete in the open market, and if you like state run , you have your and thats it.

[throwaway34241]

Most of the high ranking health care systems would probably be considered "universal healthcare", in that everyone has access to care. Many of them are not single payer though (in the sibling comment's WHO ranking link, France, a multi-payer system, was ranked #1 for "overall system performance").

But I agree generally with this approach. Nearly every developed country has dramatically lower costs for the level of health outcomes, but they do it in a variety of different ways. There are clearly possible affordability improvements (even if we only try to catch-up to where other countries are at). But certain approaches may be more feasible to implement or may have less downside if things don't go perfectly.