No. Spreading the costs over millions of taxpayers makes the cost you pay into the system way smaller, plus gives the government a huge contractual power when dealing with pharma companies.
It’s really not that hard to comprehend, but I yet have to find a single American that for some reason doesn’t try to justify or straight up defend the US broken and unequal healthcare system.
Yes, medical cost in the US is out of control. No, the government should not be the provider. That doesn't fix the problem. It just makes new ones. Our government is extremely limited by the Constitution on what they are supposed to do. Unless "providing medical services" is added as a power of government to the Constitution there will continue to be a large, vocal opposition to government healthcare.
Apologies in advance if I’m mistaken, but isn’t your Constitution supposed to protect your right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?”
How does one have life and liberty if they have a crushing burden of medical bills?
More simply, how does one have life if the medication needed to save you - is $750 a dose? or $300 an injection (and expiries with no refundable “core charge” whether you use it or not)?
> Apologies in advance if I’m mistaken, but isn’t your Constitution supposed to protect your right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?”
You are mistaken. But, that's okay, even many Americans get confused about attributes of the Declaration of Independence vs. the Articles of Confederation vs. the Constitution, and tend to misattribute things from the first two to the last one.