Arnold Kling argues that the administrative savings from a single-payer system is minimal and superficial:

After [getting rid of private insurance administrators], costs might be less than the existing system. By a small amount. For a short time. But innovation in health care management and administration would slow to a crawl. Health care providers would need permission from Washington to try anything new. In the long run, administrative costs will be higher than they would have been under private health insurance.

In the short run, getting rid of competition and installing a monopoly lowers overhead. In the long run, it’s not so brilliant.

Aside from the supposed savings from administrative costs, the main problem with a single-payer system is that there is no recourse for physicians to turn to should things sour. With the recent Medicare debacle, doctors threatened to drop Medicare patients and successfully pressured Congress to reverse a pay cut.

With a single-payer/Medicare-for-all system, physicians no longer have that leverage. Of course, health wonks would love nothing more than powerless physicians.

What puzzles me is why some within the medical profession are willing to give that up.