[underlipton]

The problem is that a public option must necessarily spend a lot more of its focus on preventative care that keeps people from developing serious chronic illness in the first place, for budgetary reasons. There are a lot of people staking their career prestige, high pay, and lifestyles on Americans having the freedom to get sick, seriously sick, on a regular and consistent basis. I'm happy to throw them under the bus, but I imagine some will be more than happy to defend them.

EDIT: Geez, here's one now: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38759502

[mdorazio]

Every single study I have seen refutes your point, which was commonly brought up during the Obamacare discussion days and never had any merit to begin with. Here's the NIH itself estimating a 13% savings compared to today: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8572548/

What you're missing is that the current "system" is so utterly wasteful and inefficient that even if we cover people's shitty lifestyle habits it would still be cheaper than what we have today. Which is basically what TFA's main point is about.

[underlipton]

Fair, though we're generally in agreement. My point is that there are many who don't want the savings, because the over-payment is what fills their bank accounts. I was trying to point out that their last refuge, even when things improve objectively and across the board for the vast majority of Americans, is that single-payer or even a public option would hurt their pocketbooks. Like I said, I'm happy to throw insurers under the bus.