I'm not really an expert at all either when it comes to healthcare or economics. I feel not particularly qualified to get into the downsides. I'm just a regular

I'm not really an expert at all either when it comes to healthcare or economics. I feel not particularly qualified to get into the downsides. I'm just a regular person trying to understand the debate and take an informed position. That said, I'll try and take a stab at answering your comment in an honest way. > Yes, government negotiation is still negotiation and yes it is not like in the private sector but it doesn't make it any less legitimate. When the government owns an entire industry (as is being proposed in this case with the health insurance industry) I'm not sure if there is any meaningful difference between the sentences, "the government will set a price" and "the government will negotiate a price with providers." We are talking about price controls as a means of lowering prices. It seems to be about that simple. I'm a bit confused by what you mean when you say that when the government does it, "it doesn't make it any less legitimate." I'm not arguing about it would be illegitimate or unlawful of the government to set prices. I am, however, suggesting that there are known negative consequences of government price controls. The general criticism of price controls, as I understand it, is that when the government sets prices too low, it causes shortages. Applied to healthcare, I would imagine that we risk slower development of new drugs and devices, lower quality service from doctors and nurses, and shortages of drugs and devices.