Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Much of the current apprehension about health care reform stems from the assumption that a universal and comprehensive health care system would necessarily cost more than we are now spending. The assumption is reasonable; after all, we would be expanding coverage, and you can't get something for nothing. But this view presumes that we are now getting our money's worth. I will here argue that this is far from the case -- that, on the contrary, we are now spending so much on health care that we could cover all medically indicated care for all Americans without any additional spending. . . .
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Marcia Angell (1993) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: