[kingnothing]

Single payer is cheaper. The US spends more per capita than any other developed nation and is not even capable of providing health care to all of its citizens.

Move to single payer, kill the medical insurance industry, and save these costs:

The health insurance industry employs approximately 605,000-912,000 people directly. The top 10 companies generate over $1.5 trillion in combined revenue annually. Conservative estimates suggest these companies spend $45-90 billion annually on employee salaries.

[bko]

> The US spends more per capita than any other developed nation and is not even capable of providing health care to all of its citizens.

US has medicare and medicaid. It actually spends more than most other countries. I guess they need to spend more to save money?

Again throwing around stats about health insurance industry is not an argument. That money gets spent on something unless you think there is some grand cabal of health insurance companies to do make-work and hire people and set money on fire for no reason. Why doesn't some greedy capitalist start a health insurance company, set slightly less money on fire and provide great healthcare?

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/u-s-spends-public-money-hea...

[kingnothing]

Yes, exactly. We spend more far more and get less because we do not have a single payer system like the rest of the world. We are lining the pockets of healthcare execs and unnecessarily employing hundreds of thousands of people at insurance companies and private companies to manage employee benefits.

[FireBeyond]

"The US spends more in public spending on healthcare than other countries" isn't some great gotcha, it's proof that healthcare access in the US is vastly more expensive than in those companies.

Some great quotes from your own link about US healthcare:

> The underlying challenges in fixing U.S. healthcare may be multi-faceted and complex, but the overall diagnosis is clear: costs are out of control.

> In other words, costs seem to be out of whack across the board in the United States, regardless of whether it is private or public care being discussed.

> Spending keeps rising, but the effect of that spending seems to have decreasing marginal returns on life expectancy – a metric that is an important indicator for the overall effectiveness of any health system.

> It’s clear that Americans aren’t getting bang for their buck when it comes to medical treatment – so how is it to be fixed?

Your own link comprehensively and thoroughly disputes your original assertion:

> If you think health insurance is expensive now, wait until it's free!

> The only argument I hear is "other countries do it", which is just unpersuasive. It's not a serious argument. Propose something better

Given that all those countries pay less for the healthcare they provide AND have better morbidity and life expectancy outcomes, I dunno, that sounds "better" to me, but apparently you have a different definition?