"But when we look at United Health Group’s operating costs in the diagram above, they’re only 22.6% of the actual cost of medical care."

A 22% decrease and a return to providers having to consider the cost implications to their patients would be a good thing.

("Return" I know a 95 year old doctor who said he still carries some guilt from keeping a poor guy in the hospital an extra night back in 1955 days because he couldn't get some blood tests done quickly enough. $5. "We only need medical insurance because we have medical insurance" ain't too far wrong)

▲

akramachamarei 3 days ago | parent [-]

Of course, it wouldn't be a 22% decrease, it might be an 11% decrease if we assume optimistically that operating costs are cut in half. I don't know if administrative efficiency is exactly a strength of the government, either.

	▲	antasvara 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		The main cost benefits are that you don't have to pay for marketing, underwriting, plan administration for a bunch of different plan types, negotiating with thousands of employers on the premium they'll pay, etc. I think an 11% decrease is conservative if anything. None of our peer nations spend more than ~5% on administration as a share of overall healthcare spending.