Crazy healthcare costs are the result of government intervention back in the 30s, and I’m doubtful they will actually be able to lower overall costs. Single payer has the advantage of being able to negotiate the costs for a much larger volume, but my guess it won’t be enough to cover the cost of bureaucrats to administer it.
Still I’m all for them trying it, if it fails miserably and the “free” healthcare leads to never being able to see the doctor and costing more, then everyone else can stop trying to emulate it. If it succeeds and actually saves money and still provides good healthcare, then we might be able to try it at a larger scale.
The US pays vastly more to administer it's health care than any other OECD country. Your assertion that the cost of government bureaucracy should exceed the cost of private markets at this task is emphatically not backed by data.
A good place to check your assumptions on these kind of basic things is the OECD data. Healthcare is here:
USA 1.4% of GDP on governance of healthcare
Germany 0.5% (competing public insurance schemes)
UK 0.2% (single payer)
US style healthcare is an ideologically driven luxury.
Well maybe our bureaucrats are simply better at getting paid.
Still the healthcare issues being fixed with more government intervention is like someone breaking your leg then giving you crutches and saying “where would you be without me”.
Still I’m all for them trying it, if it fails miserably and the “free” healthcare leads to never being able to see the doctor and costing more, then everyone else can stop trying to emulate it. If it succeeds and actually saves money and still provides good healthcare, then we might be able to try it at a larger scale.