(1) we don't know the claims of the study will be accurate if implemented and (2) we would need studies modelling cost savings of alternative approaches to actually compare anything.

Obamacare made wild claims about cost savings as well. That didn't work out for many reasons that could show up again with another universal healthcare push.

▲

dmschulman 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

There's a multitude of evidence that points to the success of the ACA from a cost perspective (among other things).

Cost of healthcare for individuals is not a good metric to judge by. The ecosystem of hospitals, patients, doctors, insurers, health systems, and the federal government is complex and you're not going to get a clear picture of the overall impact of the ACA by looking as something as simple as cost savings.

One example, hospitals are required to treat patients whether or not they hold insurance. The hospital foots the bill for that care and it's a major reason why hospitals shut down (especially in underserved communities). Getting more people on insurance plans was a direct factor is keeping many struggling hospitals and health systems afloat.

https://www.statnews.com/2019/03/22/affordable-care-act-cont...

https://www.networkforphl.org/news-insights/the-affordable-c...

https://www.cbpp.org/research/health/chart-book-accomplishme...

▲

_heimdall 2 days ago | parent [-]

If the ACA was so successful at reducing coats we wouldn't still be having discussions like this about the excessive costs of both care and insurance in the US.

We will never know how costs would have changed if we didn't implement the ACA, and cost is not the only metric of success. But it clearly hasn't led us to a place where people feel okay with what the industry costs.

	▲	dmschulman a day ago \| parent [-]
		The purpose of the ACA was to get more people to sign up for health insurance by creating plans everyone could access regardless of employment status or income. Solving the healthcare crisis in this country from top to bottom is going to take more than an act of Congress. Also necessary to remember the ACA was only passed because of Democratic support in 2010. Republicans hacked away at the proposal before it became law, kneecapping any real institutional changes it had contained, and have effectively killed it since becoming the majority in the House and Senate in 2024. That bipartisan support piece is required in order for anything meaningful to happen.

▲

hx8 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

1. Do any of the cost savings recommendations you address come close to $1T/yr impact? This is the scale we should be aiming for.

2. If you think this modeling is inaccurate or incomplete you can directly discuss that. That would be a much more interesting discussion than "it might be incorrect."

	▲	_heimdall 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		That's a great question, and one that should receive similar funding and attention to properly compare. My hunch is that (a) this study over estimates on the cost reduction side and would not pan out, and (b) improving health should always be a better cost savings than reducing corporate overhead (especially given how piss poor our average health is today).