> The bet on diabetes has to happen before it is diagnosed to make actuarial analysis. If you want to guarantee that all diabetes patients get access to insulin, what you want is charity, not insurance. Insurance is risk pooling.

Yep! That's why health insurance is a misnomer. There's no guarantee my house will catch fire, so I insure against it. There is a 100% chance each and every human will catch a terminal illness. That makes it at best a structured payout program. The amount of the payout can be reduced through preventative care, and yes, maintenance drugs like insulin. That's the best case for why it should be socialized.

It's not insurance, and it's not charity, it's a service in the public interest. And of course people should have access to the medication they need to live, we're not savages.

> The science has already shown that is true. Over and underutilization of healthcare are studied effects, ones insurance companies pay very close attention to because if they don't, they will go bust. That is also why countries with free healthcare also have copays.

Insurance companies get paid in advance, and their goal is not to provide the best care but to return the largest amount possible to their shareholders. Co-pays keep people out of hospital, especially lower-income folks, which allows insurance companies to make more money. Same with high deductibles. Their goal is not care, it's profit.

The UK and Canada (the systems I know best) don't really have co-payments, certainly not like in the US. The vast majority of services are co-payment free [1] (UK: "Out-of-pocket payments for general practice are limited to some services, such as examinations for employment or insurance purposes and the provision of certificates for travel or insurance", in Ontario going to the hospital you only pay for parking or 'upgrades' like private rooms - [2], [3] is the entire fee schedule). Same with Australia [4] who in 2015 rebelled over an AU$7 co-pay. You get sick, you go to the doctor, they take care of it.

Think about it, if you could access any procedure right now, what would you get done? Nothing, because it's not fun, it's not rewarding. If it's medically necessary, you'll get it done one way or the other, if it's not, literally why are you at the hospital? Yes, use goes up a bit. IMO, that can be offset by creating clinics and guiding people to them for minor ailments as in the UK.

> I think you are have an outsider's view on how healthcare provision works. No doctor i met would ever agree with this statement.

Respectfully disagree. Both my parents are doctors, and I grew up in numerous medical systems all over the world. I've benefitted hugely from socialized medical systems and not having one right now is downright terrifying even though I'm well 'insured'.

My dad refused to work in the US because he felt the healthcare system here was inhumane. He wanted to provide people care based on their needs not what they could afford. It took me until I lived here to understand he was exactly right. There's a lot of this apologist: "there must be some reason the American system is better" -- sorry, it's just not better.

[1] https://international.commonwealthfund.org/countries/england...

[2] https://www.qch.on.ca/hospitalcharges

[3] https://www.qch.on.ca/uploads/Finance/Hospital%20fees%20Webs...

[4] https://transferwise.com/au/blog/healthcare-system-in-austra...