Ever since Jon Walker and I pointed out the real and superficial similarities between Paul Ryan’s proposed RyanCare for future seniors and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) structure for non-seniors, numerous pundits have been trying to deny either the similarities or the differences.

Another problem for Romney-care. Even with an individual mandate private insurers in Massachusetts costs to consumers rise faster than public plans. How much more evidence do we need that single payer health care is the only affordable way to go?

I’m a little confused by Erza Klein’s mostly helpful post showing, once again, the US paying much higher public and private costs than the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries for health care. Congress and the Administration should be reminded of that every day.

Klein is surely correct in noting that other developed nations rely much more on government-sponsored plans than purely private systems. As a result, they achieve not only lower total health care costs, as a percentage of GDP, but more universal coverage (and equal or better care) than does the US. The lesson to draw is fairly obvious: we need to move towards Medicare for all or some variation of a government-sponsored single-buyer model.

While I understand the argument for how ACOs could reduce cost through better integration of care, those possible savings need to be balanced against the very serious issue that, more monopoly-like market power over a necessity, absent systemic price control, is normally a recipe for higher cost.