My legal writing professor advised us never to ask a rhetorical question because opposing counsel is probably more than happy to answer it. I don’t know if Leo Morris considered his question rhetorical, but I went ahead and offered some possible answers anyway. Leo asks, with respect to health care, “how can anyone seriously argue that further government involvement will reduce costs?”
My response:
1. Lower administrative costs. Government programs don’t have to pay shareholders, CEOs, or – depending somewhat on the nature of the government insurance plan – legions of bureaucrats to flyspeck each claim to see if it can plausibly be denied.
2. Economies of scale. The bigger the pool of insureds, the easier risk is to manage. For a big enough population, you can predict the risks fairly accurately. Additionally, with that kind of purchasing power, you can negotiate good rates.
3. Stitch in time. If uninsureds or underinsureds get treated sooner rather than later, their care will generally be less expensive.
And, as Craig points out, there is empirical evidence. We are not forging new ground here, other countries have pulled this off. Compared to them, however, the United States spends more on health care as a percentage of its GDP than other industrialized democracies that maintain a single-payer system.