[zebrafish]

This article does make me wonder about the practicality of Medicare for All. From this example, it seems like a great way to line hospital executives’ pockets with taxpayer money. Is the goal to institute a Medicare for All system alongside requirements for everyone to move to a not-for-profit model?

[jellicle]

If the government is the only payer, they can squeeze the excess profit out of the system year over year.

"Hey, we noticed you pay your executives $25 million a year. We decided to cut the executive pay allowance this year."

"Hey, we noticed you're paying your shareholders 50% of your revenue. You seem pretty profitable, so we're cutting your reimbursement rates for all procedures this year."

Such a system is eminently practical. What's not practical is the current US system.

[tertius]

Non-profit hospitals still charge normal people insane prices for nothing. Non profit does not insulate us from predatory practices.

Hospitals want to grow and want to stay solvent (regardless if they're for or non-profit). $400 Ibuprofen it is!

Price transparency is one solution for this.

[pessimizer]

It's a very good question. It's why M4A was always a pragmatic centrist compromise, when really to get maximum efficiency you need an NHS. It's weird that Romneycare ended up playing the part of the radical communist bugabear for the right as premiums skyrocket and more profits are being made than ever. VA hospitals for all would be the real lefty dream.

[fakedang]

Come to the NHS in the UK to see maximum operational efficiency. Pretty efficient if you died waiting for your turn in line, or because the government decided that your ailment isn't severe enough to warrant the use of that blockbuster therapy.