> I agree that if we are to maintain this opaque system where customers (patients) pay a flat rate for ludicrously overpriced insurance, and then have no insigh

> I agree that if we are to maintain this opaque system where customers (patients) pay a flat rate for ludicrously overpriced insurance, and then have no insight into prices nor ability to reduce them because they don’t pay for the actual services, then universal healthcare is better. How do you square free-market ideals in a price-inelastic market? If my life is on the line, do I really decline the $10k required treatment? > However, universal healthcare is not a panacea as evidenced by many angry patients waiting for procedures in Canada and the UK - although they are leaps and bounds better off than many in the current USA system. This needs a cite. Most folks I know in Canada and France are satisfied with a wait time for non-urgent procedures, knowing that at least they won't be potentially getting bankrupted like folks in the US for random billing.