Universal Health Care

" I am showing universal healthcare in the rest of the world is considerably cheaper and performance is generally better than the US." With a faulty measure of costs. " It makes no sense to say the US system is worse than the rest of the countries because of the government. These other countries have the same government regulations as the US PLUS considerably more." We also aren't subsidized like they are by having a superpower take all the security problems of the world onto their backs. Because we are that superpower. The US bureaucracy has considerably more considerations to deal with, as such, we aren't as good at postponing the negative impacts of universal health care (yes postponing, economics is a long term game, so long term that most of the consequences of universal health care are in the future for the countries that already have it, because they haven't had it for all that long). " As the OECD data "R&D as a percentage of GDP" showed, nations with the highest R&D spending were universal systems, not the US. You cannot say R&D will SLOW to a "trickle" from government, when these countries already have HIGHER R&D rates and much more government.Drug R&D was the ONE THING you said remains private about the US." I made a mistake. We already have socialized R&D. Yet the government is clearly operating at capacity at the moment. Which would mean it would likely not mitigate the essential disappearance of the 25% of the market that is semi-private. " You also seem to be arguing there exists a global conspiracy to make private-system overhead costs look much higher than the rest of the world, including US publicly funded systems." It doesn't take a conspiracy to cover up such simple things, just whatever care for their own hides the bureaucrats have :D. " Increased marketing waste is a standard "Prisoner's Dilemma" economic scenario where markets can be less efficient than government. When a company starts to compete by increased marketing, competitors have to do the same. Eventually, everyone pays more with no increase in service." Information about what is available is an increase in service. "Research to deny potentially unhealthy people does NOT save money. It saves the insurer money, but passes the full cost on to someone else." Only if that someone else is forced to pay it. " Healthcare will never be an efficient market-system because nobody will "shop around" when they need care" Not all care is emergency care you know. "and providers will always maximize their profit." Don't you think maybe, the providers who provide cheaper care would be able to ADVERTISE that fact, and so negate this? Especially considering how health care was much cheaper before the employer-tied health insurance laws caused a lack of economizing on that front. "A person will normally pay everything to live, so you need an organized consumer agency to collectively negotiate prices, as every universal system does." Again, not every day is an emergency. And mandating prices by law does not count as negotiation. "In the US, each insurer has their own "network" of hospitals or doctors I must use." No, SOME insurers do. Others allow you to choose. And this is a consequence of the state-mandated extension of insurance. Health insurance was originally intended only to cover expensive emergencies, the rest to be paid out of pocket, and the rest was much cheaper as a result. The rise in expense results from the laws that state patients who cannot pay MUST be treated... meaning, we already HAVE a de facto universal system. Everyone gets health care, as long as they steal it openly by marching to the emergency room. "Finally, the doctor must call my insurer and negotiate any procedures, which they have a profit-incentive to deny" They only have a profit-incentive to deny it because they are legally forbidden to make a list of specific ailments they will cover and no more. If they did make such a list, the risk of such an easily losable lawsuit for violation of contract would reverse the profit incentive. " Actually, it says the US has shorter waits for ELECTIVE NON-EMERGENCY treatment than CANADA. " I.e. encouraging such problems to be left untreated in Canada, and thus encouraging it to become an emergency issue. "t also says the Americans were more likely to go without such care" Care they didn't pay for. And unfortunately they still manage to get it if they know where to go :D "The previous sources pointed out waiting for EMERGENCY care was longer in the US than anywhere else" Because the emergency room is where our current universal health care system is handled. "Americans wait more for emergency care, are more likely to go without elective care, but shorter wait times for those who get it is a better system?" The only relevant factor in judging a system is the experience of those who have earned it's services. The experience of the thieves is not relevant. " Universal healthcare is not "mob rule" because it is UNIVERSAL." Any system in which people can be stolen from, the only justification being the preponderance of numbers against them, is mob rule. " As for the economy, Europe is doing just fine. The IMF's richest 10 nations includes all of the Scandinavian and welfare states, with the highest tax rates and largest government health spending in the world. Sweden, Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Qatar. The US has slipped out of the top 10." These are all much smaller countries. Their sample size is much smaller, thus, they are dealing with a different sort of country. Canada is a much more comparable country to deal with. Canada is the only "universal health care" country with a similar sample size, culture, etc. to the US. It is the only reasonable grounds for comparison. And hmm, highest tax rates... That means the least amount of what you earn remaining with you. That won't last. Economics is longer term than that.