> State controlled medicine is essentially the only solution to the already partly collapsed US health care system.
But wouldn't government control and subsidy lead to the same malinvestment and cost explosions as college tuitions?
Wouldn't fierce competition at all levels be a good thing?
Why not force insurers to cover everything up to a set cost on a per-disease basis? That is, let patients spend a set allowance before forcing them to use in-network?
Why not adapt upfront cost estimates? Allow overages, but if a hospital goes consistently over estimate, then they get penalized?
Allow patients to access cheaper doctors and services if they waive their rights to medical malpractice lawsuits.
Give patients cheaper healthcare for demonstrable good health practices (taking into account diseases and existing conditions).
> But wouldn't government control and subsidy lead to the same malinvestment and cost explosions as college tuitions?
It could do. It is hard to see how it could be worse. The USA health care system, "industry", is a case study in failure at all levels except some pointy headed technology
> Wouldn't fierce competition at all levels be a good thing?
Definitely not. Competition is good in some areas, very bad in others. All sides must be able to enter and leave the market, and there must be even distribution of information. Most health care does not fit well
Many countries have socialised systems that use waiting lists rather than wealth to ration access to health care. The private health industry work very hard, at all levels I have seen, to undermine those systems, but in many cases they offer very good care.
Some of the best health care in the Americas is in Cuba
It literally would. Subsidies invariably result in cost disease, because there's more money for the same amount of value in the market.
> It is hard to see how it could be worse.
This isn't a very useful statement - it would just literally get worse. You don't have to visualize it.
> Definitely not. Competition is good in some areas, very bad in others.
Where is competition bad? You haven't pointed any areas out. Competition seems obviously good to me basically everywhere.
> Most health care does not fit well
Which is not a property intrinsic to healthcare, but a mere result of the fact that the government hasn't legislated price transparency in that area into effect yet.
> Many countries have socialised systems that use waiting lists rather than wealth to ration access to health care.
...which is obviously stupid because, unlike situations where you pay for your care, adding people to a wait list does not fund further capacity.
But wouldn't government control and subsidy lead to the same malinvestment and cost explosions as college tuitions?
Wouldn't fierce competition at all levels be a good thing?
Why not force insurers to cover everything up to a set cost on a per-disease basis? That is, let patients spend a set allowance before forcing them to use in-network?
Why not adapt upfront cost estimates? Allow overages, but if a hospital goes consistently over estimate, then they get penalized?
Allow patients to access cheaper doctors and services if they waive their rights to medical malpractice lawsuits.
Give patients cheaper healthcare for demonstrable good health practices (taking into account diseases and existing conditions).