Subject: Re: Trump To Allow Crypto In 401K's...
It's that switching would significantly increase the amount we collectively pay for health care,...

But would it?

We already pay more. We cover those who can't get care, either through ACA tax credits, or ER visits (in which ERs can't ask if you can pay until you're ready for release from the ER). Granted, the ER isn't quite the same coverage that you and I expect. It's also a lot more expensive in the ER.

Cut out insurance, reduce trivial ER visits, give the government power to negotiate like insurance companies already do (ref: my $150K surgery that didn't cost anyone $150K), and -more difficult to quantify- make people healthier so they need to use less services in the first place, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's a wash. Or, at least, not catastrophically more than we're already paying. Plus, as an added bonus, medical bills won't drive people into poverty, which has numerous other costs associated with it (e.g. food stamps).

IMO, the big problem is the perception of "socialism", and the medical and pharm lobbies. Heck, the pharm lobbies really messed up Part D for the average citizen.

The ACA's big flaw is that it relies on private insurance. The government pays part (or all) of the premiums to for-profit insurance, and we (those of us on ACA) also pay private insurance for anything the tax credits don't cover. And then we have to worry about which doctors are on which networks. We can eliminate that entirely but making government the insurance provider, and encouraging all doctors to be "in-network". No more middle-men-insurance companies paying big bonuses to their CEOs (which comes from the premiums they receive, as well as the specious denials of claims), nor dividends to their shareholders (also from our premiums). Private insurance is a huge waste of money when we know government can do it, and do it better.