← Back to context

Comment by dripdry45

1 day ago

it’s that first paragraph which is really the bugaboo. In an ideal world that first paragraph is 100% true. In reality, what you get is the government getting its own people on the inside, raking in tons of contract money and doing very little for that, then squeeze the services on the inside to win political points from their constituents by drumming up hatred for the system in which they work. While they take in "campaign contributions" from private entities who benefit from people falling out of the system or being fed up with it.

so I agree with you in theory, but in practice, there was a whole host of other issues that would need to be dealt with somehow. I don’t know that more bureaucracy is the solution, but I would like to think it can be handled.

Actual competition and monopoly breaking/preventing.

"Free" markets tend to have transparent pricing : US healthcare does not.

"Free" markets tend to have large numbers of independent players that compete with each other : This is disappearing in the US market.

We have the worst of both systems currently. It's not ran by the government to control costs to the end user. And it's ran by a few monopolistic insurance/medical companies to reap as much profit as possible.