I'm struggling to find where this author concludes that universal healthcare is free like free energy from a perpetual motion machine. Can't find it.
Could it be that you're misinterpreting the repetition of the fact that countries with universal healthcare have better health outcomes, and yet pay less than half of what we do for healthcare, with it somehow being completely free? The same fact that's repeated in the title "22 studies agree: 'Medicare for All' saves money"?
Which of those 22 studies claims that cheaper healthcare with better outcomes is the result of free labor?
Looking at the rest of links, it seems to me that you believe that anyone claiming, with evidence, that universal healthcare saves money somehow thinks that universal healthcare doesn't cost anything.
I see now that I was too terse with my initial comment. Cedarfjard explained it well.
> there are people who think that the costs could be less under such a system, and thus that a change would end up ”costing nothing” as contrasted with ”costs going up compared to the current system”
