Earlier quoted context omitted.
> extreme inefficiency and much higher labor costs Which is mooted with single payer. Roughly 1/3rd of costs eliminated. Last time I checked (mid 2000s). Probably more now.
> Which is mooted with single payer. As in doctors, nurses, and other personnel will accept lower salaries because they won't have any choice? I'm not sure that would work in the US. Also, there are relatively efficient non-single-payer systems in Europe (e.g., IIRC, Switzerland and the Netherlands don't have the equivalents of Medicare/Medicaid). Proper regulation, including price transparency and regulation, would…
Limiting the US spending per citizen to roughly $2k/year per adult seems impossible in the current climate. It should happen but it won’t. If current health spending trends are to be believed, the number of people using less than 2k/yr in services are less than 20% of the population. There just aren’t enough young people in the US to make up for it, and the feds will never get approval to cover the gap.
The only hope I see for US healthcare is to open government funded hospitals and clinics and offer it as another insurance option. They can compete in the market and hope they have enough funding to eventually convince people that they aren’t going anywhere. This will take a lot of capital to weather the first few years of insanity and shenanigans that we will see from traditional insurance companies. Anything less than competition will be lauded as communism (it will anyway, who am I kidding) but for some poor red states, opening a few clinics in rural areas might actually work for them come time for re-election.
I’m saying all of this as an American living in the Netherlands.