[astrange]

> If the US healthcare market isn't capitalist, then no country's healthcare system is.

Yes.

That said, developing countries are most likely to have one. If the government caps the number of doctors and hospitals in the country, like the US does with residencies and certificate of need laws, it's not very market-driven.

[pbz]

The government does not cap the number of doctors. There's no law that you can only have X doctors. What it caps is the amount of social help it's willing to subsidize. This is like complaining that the government is not "socialist" enough and therefore socialism is bad.

[astrange]

No, the US government caps the number of doctors because Medicare funds residency slots, and you have to get through one of those to get a license to be a doctor.

> There's no law that you can only have X doctors.

We have tons of these laws. All occupational licensing requirements are this law; that's the whole point of them.

[pbz]

The US government caps the number of residencies it is paying/subsidizing. Yes, you have to go through residency, but there's nothing stopping the private sector from taking on this cost (well, other than greed)

It is a subsidy program:

https://hospitalmedicaldirector.com/how-residents-are-paid/

> We have tons of these laws.

Point me to one law that says you are not allowed to have more than X doctors.

[astrange]

> Point me to one law that says you are not allowed to have more than X doctors.

Why can't we have doctors that other countries have agreed are qualified to be doctors?

Also, do you know how certificate of need laws work? It literally says you can't have a hospital unless the other nearby hospitals agree you can have it.

Taxi medallions are truly a "there can only be X many people doing this" system, but even if they're not written that way, these other laws are still intended to restrict the supply of healthcare.

nb my issue isn't whether the healthcare system is "socialist" or not, it's that it's bad. I don't think "just make the government pay for everything" is a solution to things costing too much though; if an ambulance ride costs $9000 the solution is to make it not cost that, not to share paying for it.

[pbz]

Your original argument was the government caps the number of doctors (not taxi drivers). I am not finding anything that would show this. There is a cap on the total amount the gov is subsidizing (should be increased, but that's a different topic).

If an individual is willing/able to pay for the cost of residency that the gov covers there's nothing to prevent one to do so. Of course, this is not a practical solution for most, but that's another story.

> nb my issue isn't whether the healthcare system is "socialist" or not, it's that it's bad.

Agree, no argument there

> I don't think "just make the government pay for everything" is a solution to things costing too much though

Of course not, but if the capitalistic / private market has failed, I'd rather try a more gov-focused approach (or something else) than let it fester and cause more and more pain.

> if an ambulance ride costs $9000 the solution is to make it not cost that, not to share paying for it.

Agree, but how do you do that when the "ambulance lobby" owns the politicians and media who then try to convince the population that this is "the best system in the world"? You can't find a better system when you already think you have the best one (not saying you do) or that the "other" system is worse because it starts with an "s".