A tiny number

[womzilla]

Avedon linked to an article at the Financial Times about the possible savings if the US switched to a "single-payer" health insurance system.

A single-payer system--which is similar to what Canada has--means that all health insurance is provided by a single entity, in this case the government. The current system in the US, where everyone provides for their own health insurance, is a bureaucratic nightmare, because medical care providers have to submit reimbursement claims to hundreds of different organizations each of which has its own way of doing things. Under a single-payer system, there's one set of forms for all people. (Think of how time-consuming it is to file your taxes. Maybe it's managable; maybe it's tough. Now imagine that you have to file a different tax form for every single transaction you make in your life. That's what the current US health-care system is like for the care providers.)

The FT refers to an upcoming article in the New England Journal of Medicine that estimates that the US could save $200 BILLION per year by switching to a single-payer system. That's about 20% of the total cost of all health care in the US, and about 2% of the GDP of the United States. That's appalling.

Comments

[ookpik.livejournal.com]

There was a similar essay in the New Yorker two or three years ago; I'll see if I can track it down. IIRC that article estimated savings of about 30% of current budget if the US went to single-payer. Wish I could remember more details.