You can't make a bunch of for profit companies act in the best interest of users. We keep trying and failing. Healthcare is a basic human right, and should be provided free of charge to everyone.
It's not so easy as just waving your hand and saying "Free Healthcare! Free for everyone!"
The NHS is fantastic.
The NHS is probably a good example. The UK has historically had low to moderate rates in immigration and the NHS. The US has had a ton of immigration, but no NHS. It seems like half of the country wants to have unchecked immigration and extensive welfare programs, but the consequences of that kind of policy will quickly become bankrupting.
I would imagine that vocal minority would be fine with a single-payer system. Again, look at what happens to pricing when the government is your sole customer. And given the influence they can wield, it would be a bonanza for them.
Based on the available evidence for healthcare: it drops like a stone because the sole customer has all the leverage.
If the government directly pays the Doctor a salary.. he doesn't care what the "profit" on a procedure is. In fact, base his pay on how good his outcomes are and how efficient he is.. i.e. pay him more to do better. Then we don't need to worry about some doctors not offering some procedures, because they are paid by salary and not salesmen.
Right now private practice doctors are salesmen. They are compensated MORE for selling unnecessary procedures. If the they can sneak it by the insurance? They do it.
Most doctors make a salary, they don't care what the 'profit' on a procedure is. They probably don't even know what most of the stuff costs. It's like college professors and textbooks.
Also, who's worrying about some doctors not offering some procedures?
Even IF that's the case it's still wildly better than the current system.
Second, what evidence do you have that it would be cheaper in those countries than if they were using a private medical system? Are there numbers from before the NHS was put together? That would be an interesting analysis.
Although, becoming a citizen has become a chore because it takes too freaking long for so many.
Of course, this is from the viewpoint of a citizen so take that into account as I don't see it from the other side.
That's the problem, I have trust issues with the people in power being capable of doing such a thing.
But it's not so bad that it can't get much worse. Getting worse is not abstract - it translates into people dying needlessly. (So does the current system being bad.) "Just change something" is only good advice if you're currently at a local minimum. And "iterate rapidly to improve" doesn't work when each change takes an act of Congress.
In particular: The last change was, what, six years ago? And the last change before that was, what, in the 1970s? You may only get one or two more chance to change this in your lifetime.
Also, iteration and government intervention don't really mix, as has been pointed out.
Take all our money we spend in various healthcare programs already. Take 20% off our military budget. Boom, free healthcare for everyone.
I took the money I use to pay rent, and the used it to pay rent. Boom free rent? I'm sorry, but that's kind of what your argument sounds like to me.
We aren't. That part is constant.
> And why do you think that expanding that program to cover everyone in the country is going to come out to be 20% of the military budget?
We can do the math if we want. Perhaps it will take 50% of the Military budget. Perhaps people earning more than 50k will need to pay a new tax that is more or less equal to what they currently pay in health insurance premiums. The math can be made to work.
> I took the money I use to pay rent, and the used it to pay rent. Boom free rent? I'm sorry, but that's kind of what your argument sounds like to me.
No more like - You spend $600 a month on smoking, and $600 a month on rent. Quit smoking, BOOM, free rent. At the end of the day, your costs dropped $600 which was the price of your rent.
It's the handwaving that's the frustrating part. What amount of the military budget is it? How are you going to charge me a new tax equivalent to my current healthcare that's going to cover me and at least one other person (just under half in the country actually pay income tax). That still sounds like magic thinking. Taxes would have to go up, how could they not? Or you gut the military, and even then I don't think it would necessarily be enough. Add in the push to completely ignore illegal immigration, and accord them the rights of citizens, and agree with that policy or not, you have to acknowledge the cost will go up even more.
It's easy to handwave the numbers. It happens a lot, but it's not a trivial detail. It has real consequences. What happens when the US Navy is no longer patrolling trade routes? Or when younger generations are crushed by a combination of increased tax burden and school loan debt?
Besides, my opinion of the comment has no bearing on my opinion of the healthcare system in any way. I can be offended by both at the same time thank you very much.
Norway Pop. 5M (approx) Finland Pop. 5M (approx) England Pop. 53M (approx) Canada Pop. 35M (approx) United States Pop. 318M (approx)
The scale is way off from many other countries who have implemented the kind of healthcare reform being talked about.
When you get to hundreds of millions of people all kinds of issues arise that you don't see elsewhere.
China and India are the only countries more populous than the United States and I'd be nervous to experience their health care system. In fact you have to go quite far down the population list to get a first world country where that kind of healthcare is being implemented (happy to be proven wrong here)
So at least some large portion of this cost increase is going into the pockets of executives and shareholders.
[1] https://personal.vanguard.com/us/funds/snapshot?FundId=5485&...