You are already group buying if you have insurance. There are always side effects to large scale government programs, like more abuse and paperwork. Reduced competition will also reduce efficiency. But I don't think this is where the large overhead comes from. The main difference is that in most other countries healthcare is regulated, so the doctors are obliged by law to charge a certain amount. The benefit is lower prices. That combined with a separation between diagnosing and treating would fix a large part of what is wrong in the US where commercial care makes it's business on billing as much as possible to people who don't really have any choice but to pay.
Wait, you are? I thought the American system of insane insurances paid to line the pockets of the insurance companies, a fraction of which actually goes to the actual health care. Isn't that how all insurance companies work? Statistics, likelihoods and commissions? Surely it would be cheaper to send the money straight to the government/health care budget where they split the bill for the actual health care with much less in terms of administration costs, commission and most likely a bunch of other factors I am not thinking about?
I have a family member with a fairly rare medical condition that required an operation performed only in one hospital in the country. Where I have a problem with systems like the NHS is that while they can deal excellently with routine stuff like broken arms or pneumonia, I think they'll fall short on the more obscure stuff.
That is not necessarily true. Over here, if you have a rare condition with only one specialized hospital, you will get reimbursed for your travel costs and treated anywhere in the country. This is a very common occurrence, as it is considered more efficient for a small country such as ours to have a few good specialists rather than many who know a little, but not enough.
Yes, over here, even drug addicts and other social outcasts who do not necessarily contribute have the basic right to healthcare, and I will happily pay my taxes to finance "even" their treatment. I know this is because I was raised and socialized in this way, but I believe that this is one of the costs of living peacefully with other people. I can contribute more because I am able bodied and healthy, but everyone is human and deserves a chance at a decent life.
As an example, I have a friend with two special-needs children. It is unlikely that either of them will contribute to society in a large way in terms of taxes. Is it fair of the government to tell her to foot the entire bill of their entire life, just because she got "unlucky" with the statistics and had not just one but two children with different conditions? What about when she dies? Should her children live in the gutter because they are not good, little productive working ants? I know this has historically been the case, but it doesn't have to be that way.
We get privileges for living in a society, just like we get responsibilities.
But health care is a different animal. Many in this forum believe that health care is a basic human right. That is, everyone deserves health care. But my question is this: To what extent does any one person "deserve" health care? Is it limited to life saving care? Basic preventative care? End of life care? What about elective surgery that affects quality of life (my own example: I had foot surgery so that I could walk without pain, but it wasn't life threatening)? Cosmetic surgery for burn victims? Hand/face transplants? Transition surgery and medications for transgender individuals? What about mental health care?
Yes, yes, yes and yes. I believe all those easily deserve to be part of a free health care package. Here you would only pay out of pocket for non-health related procedures such as cosmetic surgery (not related to burn victims but purely for aesthetics), dental care is only partly government covered (for some odd reason), and mental care/prescription medicine is self-paid up to the first ~$300 a year.
