None of these links say what you're claiming they say.
Your courthouse link:
> “For me, the important lesson is that single payer can re-direct huge resources – about $700 billion per year in the U.S. – from insurance paperwork and excessive drug prices to clinical care. In other words, with a simplified payment system, we can afford to insure everyone and with high quality insurance – broad benefits, minimal cost-sharing, choice of provider,” Kahn said in an email.
Your UCSF link:
> The U.S. spends more on healthcare than any other country, yet is one of only a few developed nations that does not provide universal coverage. Under proposed single payer bills, such as “Medicare for All,” a unified public financing system would replace private insurance, similar to the healthcare system in Canada and many other wealthy nations.
Your pnhp link:
> Honoring a rather unpleasant tradition, the September issue of Health Affairs published yet another peer-reviewed study confirming that administrative costs in the U.S. healthcare system are the highest in the world. These administrative costs do not improve patient care. They pay for more administrators.
> Each American physician requires 10 administrators to stay in business. Why does American healthcare require twice as many administrators as any other healthcare system?
None of these are saying single payer healthcare is free. They're saying the US system is fantastically expensive, and single payer would be cheaper and better.
Yes, MystK, if these are the texts you say support your thesis, then I think I might not understand what you mean by the statement that ”there are definitely people who think universal healthcare will cost nothing”.
If what you mean is that there are people who think that the costs could be less under such a system, and thus that a change would end up ”costing nothing” as contrasted with ”costs going up compared to the current system” - then yeah I agree, there are people who believe that, and I’d say they are right in doing so. I’d also say that the way you’ve chosen to express that is misleading to say the least.
I assume you don’t believe that these people think that it’s literally free, that paying workers, buying supplies, and building and maintaining facilities and so on cost literally nothing.
But if it’s neither of these two concepts that you’re referring to, then I honestly have no clue what you’re trying to say.
Yes the former is exactly what I mean. I've reread my comment and definitely see how it could be misconstrued. I didn't mean to cause confusion, but it was just the shortest way to express that idea.
I'm struggling to find where this author concludes that universal healthcare is free like free energy from a perpetual motion machine. Can't find it.
Could it be that you're misinterpreting the repetition of the fact that countries with universal healthcare have better health outcomes, and yet pay less than half of what we do for healthcare, with it somehow being completely free? The same fact that's repeated in the title "22 studies agree: 'Medicare for All' saves money"?
Which of those 22 studies claims that cheaper healthcare with better outcomes is the result of free labor?
Looking at the rest of links, it seems to me that you believe that anyone claiming, with evidence, that universal healthcare saves money somehow thinks that universal healthcare doesn't cost anything.
I see now that I was too terse with my initial comment. Cedarfjard explained it well.
> there are people who think that the costs could be less under such a system, and thus that a change would end up ”costing nothing” as contrasted with ”costs going up compared to the current system”