[TheBeardKing]

The way I see it, either side's solution would be better than this mash-up of private insurance heavily encumbered by government regulations and subsidies. Single-payer would be much more efficient and cost-effective, while on the other hand, massively de-regulating the market would open it up to cost and treatment innovations.

The biggest downside to socialized care is stagnant innovation and a slow-moving bureacracy, and the major drawback to private care is unlimited catastrophic consequences for major health issues, and the fact that cost-comparison isn't possible for emergency care.

If I were decider for a day, I'd flip a coin for either option over what we have currently.

[arcticbull]

To be fair the 'cost innovation' would be 'how do we make cover yet more expensive' because private insurers have you in a bit of a bind, don't they? It's 'pay up or die.' That's the alternative you're proposing, is it not?

[TheBeardKing]

No, not at all. Look at Kaiser Health System and other subscriber networks, those are clear cost innovations. Also, urgent care centers, which are vastly cheaper than ERs. And CVS, Kroger minute clinics.

edit: Also, in the future, maybe we'll have AI doctors, and we're presently seeing remote health care through apps. I'm not talking specifically medical treatment technology, but so many other methods of health care which would greatly be encumbered by heavy-handed government regulations.

[arcticbull]

And yet if you walk in without money in an unregulated market, to a company whose goal is to maximize shareholder value will they (a) treat you out of the kindness of their hearts or (b) do what they always did and tell you to pay up or die? It’s like walking into an Apple store and asking for a free laptop. But you know, with your life.

Kaiser isn’t much of an innovation it’s just a scaled down model of any socialized health system. It’s exactly what Canada has but smaller.

[TheBeardKing]

Using emergency services for the core of your argument is a strawman, as vastly more medical services are non-emergency or life threatening.

Also, in the US, Kaiser is an innovation. Comparing a voluntary, private organization to a forced, tax-funded system is a false comparison.

[arcticbull]

> Using emergency services for the core of your argument is a strawman, as vastly more medical services are non-emergency or life threatening.

No, it isn't. It's the reason health insurance isn't insurance. Literally everyone will at some point come down with an emergency or life-threatening condition, and 100% of us will eventually die of one. It's not insurance if it's going to happen to you.

> Also, in the US, Kaiser is an innovation. Comparing a voluntary, private organization to a forced, tax-funded system is a false comparison.

That doesn't make it innovating. Cloning a system that works elsewhere isn't innovation. Get over the "forced tax funded" nonsense too, unless you want to relinquish all social services like education, fire, water, etc.

[krupan]

Believe it or not, most doctors get into the field because they truly enjoy helping people. It's interesting to me how often arguments in favor of socialism devolve into "but people are greedy, selfish, jerks." And then the solution to that is to put those greedy selfish jerks into government jobs providing the same services.

Most people are good, folks, otherwise no society is going to work!

[arcticbull]

Exactly why they would be okay with a reasonable pay cut for the public good. Because they're in it for the public good and helping people. So lets put them in a position they can help everyone who comes through the door without demanding their visa card first.