I would prefer they just take a step back for a while.
You are poor? You die.
You are rich? Here is a nice bed and 3 doctors to care for you.
I do not want to live in that world. I do not want my children to live in that world.
There likely will never be endless free healthcare for everybody. Until then its rationed. How do you do that? As my old minister used to say, we can have all the morals we can afford.
I'm also in favor of reasonable free healthcare for everybody, to a point. Because, enlightened self-interest. Its cheaper to have a healthy populace, for everybody.
So some middle ground is necessary, between blue-sky endless free healthcare, and a free market.
You are rich? Fly to that other country for immediate treatment.
There are pros and cons to everything. The trick is to find the middle ground that suits the most people possible the best it can. I'm just not convinced a total government solution is best for everybody across the board.
In the current world, not everyone gets treatment.
I think I will take these problems over the current.
That is, until you have to sit in severe pain for six months.
Why is it a common assumption that the government can fix, with more government, the problems government created? Maybe fixing the damn problem is for the government to reduce its involvement in the problems it created?
The issue is our entire healthcare system is for profit and there is no market driver to reduce costs. Insurance companies collude with the AMA, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies to raise prices on all aspects of healthcare.
The government needs to create that driver to reduce cost, since the industry is unwilling to. This could be many things, from public hospitals that provide free or low cost care (reducing the need for insurance), to creating a mutual insurance company whose charter is to minimize healthcare cost (creating competition in the marketplace).