friendly reminder that the evidence is overwhelming that single-payer healthcare in the us would result in better healthcare coverage while saving money overall. taking into account both the costs of coverage expansion and the savings that would be achieved through the medicare for all act, we calculate that a single-payer, universal health-care system is likely to lead to a 13% savings in national health-care expenditure, equivalent to more than us$450 billion annually based on the value of the us$ in 2017 .33019-3/fulltext)   lancet/article/piis0140-6736(19 similar to the above yale analysis, a recent publication from the congressional budget office found that 4 out of 5 options considered would lower total national expenditure on healthcare (see exhibit 1-1 on page 13)   20-12/56811-single-payer.pdf but surely the current healthcare system at least has better outcomes than alternatives that would save money, right? not according to a recent analysis of high-income countries healthcare systems, which found that the top-performing countries overall are norway, the netherlands, and australia. the united states ranks last overall, despite spending far more of its gross domestic product on health care. the u.s. ranks last on access to care, administrative efficiency, equity, and health care outcomes, but second on measures of care process.   blications/fund-reports/2021/aug/mi rror-mirror-2021-reflecting-poorly# outcomes
Nazi