No. of Recommendations: 2
And now you will be performing all the medical treatments for the people who wouldn't have gotten those treatments, either because they lacked insurance/money or were underinsured.
That's going to cost a lot.
But, perhaps, not as much as treating those people in ERs. And there's two elements to that. First, people using ERs for general healthcare (expensive), and people using the ERs because they didn't get treatment when something was minor, and now it's very severe (and more expensive). That's ignoring the issue of ERs packed with non-urgent patients because they can't get care elsewhere.
During the original ACA debates, I recall both are major contributors to expensive healthcare. One example I recall was a guy who had some infection (I think it was an abscess), and he was given two scripts. He couldn't afford both, so he opted for the pain killer over the antibiotic. The infection got to the point that he was in the ICU, on the taxpayer dime, and ended up dying. That's so messed up on so many levels. And we, the taxpayers, paid for it. If he had UHC, and gotten regular care to catch conditions early, it never would have gotten to that point.
Like fixing your car...when the oil light illuminates, put some oil in it. Costs a few bucks. Or, wait until you throw a rod, and pay a couple of thousand to get that fixed (if you don't have to do a complete engine replacement).
Investing a few dollars now saves a fortune later. And patients like the one described will eventually get care. It's usually critical care, and very expensive. We, as a society, are not likely to "let them die". Well...depending on how prevalent MAGA is, maybe we are?
I don't have solid numbers, but I would not be the least bit surprised if it would be a wash in terms of spending. Either care for everyone routinely (relatively cheap), or only care for the people when they become critical and need ERs and ICUs (very expensive).
