[magicalist]

> Who's not receiving healthcare right now that would be ultimately saved by the government?

People not receiving basic preventative care with problems that are only going to snowball until emergency services can try to treat a much more complex situation in the future?

> Secondly let's cut the hyperbole and have a rational conversation about this.

You could have maybe had a point by quoting "but the market will win", but "Americans will die needless deaths from not receiving basic healthcare" is literally what's at stake. What exactly do you think the downsides of people not being able to afford healthcare are?

[buckbova]

"Americans will die needless deaths"

when they're on long wait lists for procedures because of a glut on resources

when they no longer have access to the high quality care they once had

when there's a greater shortage of quality nurses and doctors because of diminished pay

when innovation is stifled because R&D is funded by the government

[magicalist]

One is happening right now, the other has a ton of evidence in every other developed country that the downsides are workable.

Yes it will be complicated, and yes, even if healthcare is guaranteed to all, profit motive is still an important driver for efficiency and innovation.

All of that, but it's still irrelevant to your dismissal of actual deaths due to our healthcare system as "appeal to emotion nonsense".

[DrScump]

  because of a glut on resources

Did you mean a run on resources? Or maybe a shortage of resources?

[buckbova]

Yes. We'll go with "dearth of resources." Thanks.