To believe that administrative overhead would significantly reduce healthcare costs is just obviously false. We spend 20% of GDP on healthcare and UK spends 10%.

Total spend is employees * average salary per employee.

Let's take a look:

* For doctors, there are roughly the same number, ~2.8 per 1000, but US doctors earn three times as much as UK doctors[1]. 294K/year US versus 66K/year (UK).

* The US has twice as many nurses[2] per 1000 people (17.4 per 1000) as the UK does (9.8 per 1000), and the US pays its nurses much more. The US pays 77K/year for an RN and 112K/year for an PN and 181K/year average salary for a nurse anasthesologist[3]. Nurses in the UK earn about 1/3 less, a total average of 33K/year[4]

* The US has 315K pharmacists (not assistants) or roughly 1 per 1000, whereas the UK has 43K or .65 per 1000. US pharmacists make average of 140K/year[7]. UK pharmacists make an average salary of 58K per year[8].

* The US has 23,200 microbiologists (earning 69K/year). The UK has 490 (earning 52K/yr)

* The US has 40 MRI machines per million. The UK has 6.

* Now let's generally talk about staffing. The US employs 20 million healthcare workers with a payroll of 1 Trillion (2018)[5] an average wage of 70K (and median wage of 42K/year). This is occupational data from BLS (https://www.bls.gov/ooh/healthcare/home.htm), so you can't complain about insurance employees at hospitals being included.

The UK has 1.3 Million[5] in both hospitals and clinics counting both NHS and Independents, with an average salary of 24.7K/year.

That means, relative to population, that the US employs 60 per 100,000 healthcare employees while the UK employs 20 per 1000. We have triple the number of healthcare workers and our health care workers earn double what the do in the UK.

Now let's talk about this enormous waste in insurance that will make healthcare affordable if only we got rid of it. Total insurance overhead in the US is 7% of healthcare expenditures[8]. So if we reduced it to zero, we would pay 7% less. Whoppee.

Thinking that you can keep paying doctors and nurses triple and have so many more staff and keep their high wages but merely with insurance reforms reduce healthcare spending by half is so wrong I am amazed I even need to say it. It's a terrible, misleading, evasive non-answer.

What we need to cut are salaries and employment. If you don't acknowledge that, then you are not a serious participant in this discussion because you are refusing to acknowledge that this problem has tough trade offs. You are not going to solve it by "cutting waste".

And this is important, because our problem, as a nation, is the general problem of professional guilds extracting too much from the rest of society. We have this problem with higher education, with finance, with healthcare. A large chunk of our professional middle class is employed by these sectors, and their well-being would be threatened if we significantly cut their wages and employment. It is not evil insurance companies, it is not shadowy billionaires, but our neighbors down the street -- the nurses, the college professors, and the X-ray technicians -- who are the ones blocking meaningful reform. And until we are willing to face that and recognize what must be done, then we will not get affordable healthcare. The incurable diseases of the modern west are all due to the professional classes extracting too much. It is not due to excessive "waste".

---

[1] https://revisingrubies.com/us-vs-uk-doctors-salary/

[2] https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-hea...

[3] https://nursinglicensemap.com/resources/nurse-salary/

[4] https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2020/number-of-hospitals-and-ho...

[5] https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/sta...

[6] https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2020/10/health-care-s...

[7] https://www.salary.com/research/salary/benchmark/pharmacist-...

[8] https://uk.indeed.com/career/pharmacist/salaries

[9] https://time.com/5759972/health-care-administrative-costs/#:....