Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money
How do we compare apples to apples (between countries)? Compare health expenditure per capita (public and private) with multiple health indexes. I.e. get the <i>bang for buck</i>.<p>In the list of nations with the best <i>bang for buck</i> healthcare programs, you will notice that top 20 healthcare programs are mostly single payer.<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.who.int&#x2F;healthinfo&#x2F;paper30.pdf" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.who.int&#x2F;healthinfo&#x2F;paper30.pdf</a><p>But there are single payer healthcare systems with bad health indexes, you might say... Well, combine single payer healthcare systems and add some transparency in healthcare and you now have an unmissable correlation.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.transparency.org&#x2F;whatwedo&#x2F;publication&#x2F;global_corruption_report_2006_corruption_and_health" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.transparency.org&#x2F;whatwedo&#x2F;publication&#x2F;global_cor...</a><p>The top 20 <i>bang for buck</i> healthcare programs (mostly single payer systems), have an average ranking in terms of healthcare transparency of 18.7.<p>Are you from the USA? Notice the countries with universal healthcare, who have a similar healthcare transparency ranking to that of the USA: Luxembourg, Canada, Germany, France, Belgium, Ireland, and Chile. Their <i>bang for buck</i> rankings are 16, 30, 25, 1, 21, 19, 33 respectively. All of these countries have a better <i>bang for buck</i> ranking than the USA&#x27;s 37.<p>In one sentence... Universal and transparently managed healthcare consistently gives more <i>bang for buck</i>.<p>And now to quote the original article... &quot;It is a bedrock economic principle that if we can find a way to do something more efficiently, it’s possible for everyone to come out ahead.&quot;<p>EDIT: Check page 18 in the first source. Check chapter 11 in the second source.