The issue is that of incentive, to put it bluntly. What is the incentive of a medical provider to provide The Best Care Possible, when they know for sure there

The issue is that of incentive, to put it bluntly. What is the incentive of a medical provider to provide The Best Care Possible, when they know for sure there is no competition? You end up with a system whose only raison d’etre is to continue working as little as possible with no real progress. Yes, not being able to afford it is obviously a bigger issue than being blind for a year. In this case, she had the option to go to a private surgeon and get it taken care of for much more money. As for your last point, in a socialistic type of service, “progress” serves to elect public officials. In a capitalistic service, “progress” serves to make more money. Both of these approaches have their flaws; however, I would argue that progress is faster and service of higher quality when a government is not involved. The gov’t advantage is that it’s “cheaper” and thus more accessible to everyone. As a commenter posted below, I think we have a critical mass of folks (half the country, basically) who would be willing to go the public route. I really have to think this through, though, bc it would create some interesting incentives to sign people up to one or the other.