>Government-run healthcare isn't a panacea I didn't claim it was. Only that our present standards incentivize fee-for-service and not outcomes-driven, as exemp

>Government-run healthcare isn't a panacea I didn't claim it was. Only that our present standards incentivize fee-for-service and not outcomes-driven, as exemplified by the author's inability to sell his outcome optimizing software. ACA tried to remedy that with preventative care standards, but the current administration is actively dismantling it. Your model works for cosmetic surgeries because they are cosmetic - optional and not life threatening. When calculating price, the cost to produce a drug is the last thing on pharmaceutical companies' minds. The question they ask is how much are you willing to pay for something that allows you to continue living. The factors they actually consider: the patient's perceived cost-benefit of continued suffering, the credit/insurance-worthiness of the treatment cohort, and whether the company faces competitive pressures from others selling the drug on the market. Nothing better depicts the situation than what goes on when pharmaceutical companies merge or acquire the rights to rarely used drugs[1]. The only way to structurally combat this is with the monopsony power of a single payer system. >I can't think of anything that the government runs better than the private sector. Healthcare is no different. Government run care has the highest satisfaction rate of any healthcare coverage[2]. 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/business/a-huge-overnight-increase-in-a-drugs-price-raises-protests.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/business/a-huge-overnight... 2. https://news.gallup.com/poll/186527/americans-government-health-plans-satisfied.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/186527/americans-government-hea...