> Thats not going to change with socialized medicine. So shouldn't you be against it? Because americans still "hate government" and if that breaks government programs, it will break socialized medicine as well.

Maybe I'm just optimistic but I hope that this could be the thin edge that changes it. When in a democracy, attacking the government is attacking yourself and your country. It hurts you and your fellow citizens to approach social services like this, IMO.

That said I'd rather a low-quality baseline everyone gets that people can buy out of as necessary than leaving 10% of Americans un-insured and fending for themselves. Now ideally, I'd like a high-quality baseline everyone gets but even a low-quality program is better than the bupkis we have today.

> US already has this. Namely Medicaid.

Well, if private cover is the be-all and end-all why do we need this? Why don't we just privatize Medicare and Medicaid if they're so much worse? That plan enjoys little support, even from Republicans. Turns out the aged are all about socialized medicine for themselves, just not for anyone under 65.

You know that Medicaid may put a lien on your house for the amount of money spent on your care right? It's not socialized cover for the poor, it's death-prevention for the destitute.

> We have had this argument before. Making it socialized will not make it cheaper...

It does, though. Accessible preventative care is cheaper than dealing with problems down the line. You don't have huge marketing budgets, you don't have CEO compensation, you don't have claims denial departments, you have simple, stream-lined payout processes and pricing structures. You drive down drug prices because the states form bulk buying groups and negotiate. That's what makes drugs in Canada so much cheaper even though unless administered at a hospital, you have to pay out of pocket -- negotiation. Your incentive as the government is to make people well to drive down the cost of healthcare. Just axing coverage will not get you re-elected. (Imagine the optics of being the politician that cut spending on healthcare causing their constituents to die publicly?)

You send everyone through a primary care physician so they're not wasting the time of specialists via self-referrals. The list goes on and on. Medicare is objectively more efficient than private care. [1]

Then if you go all-in you can do what Canada does and socialize malpractice insurance too. It costs a fraction there of what it does here.

> In any case, again, if gov will be so efficient, it can start with a public option and see how that goes.

I'm down.

> By voting you decide. That's government.
I dont want to vote to see if I can see the doctor I want to see or pick the service I want to use.

You don't get it. It's the other way around. In a public system 100% of doctors are in-network. You can go see anyone you need. In the US you either go to the ones your employer has in-network or you go bankrupt trying to see someone else. Change jobs? You may well have to change doctors. This whole narrative represents a false choice.

It's the other way around: Socialized cover represents a large cluster of freedoms: The freedom to pursue self-employment or liberal arts or stay-at-home parenting without fear of death or bankruptcy. The freedom to pick any job regardless of medical coverage. The freedom from worry about dying in the streets. The freedom from fighting your insurer over legitimate claims. The freedom to pick your own doctor regardless of what your boss wants -- and keep them if you change jobs! The freedom from having to pay more than you can afford for medical coverage. It's the freedom from having to be required to create profits for the insurance companies, by law (the individual mandate).

> The government "decides" for you in so many other ways,
That doesn't make me feel any better.

Fair.

[1] https://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20190211/NEWS/19021...