> Which is why we should nationalize it to drive down the cost since there is currently no downward pressure on pricing. Strongly disagree. The state is alread

> Which is why we should nationalize it to drive down the cost since there is currently no downward pressure on pricing. Strongly disagree. The state is already in the market with Medicare and it is not significantly cheaper. It has shown that as a player it doesn't not know how to deliver care cost-effectively. The reasons why health is expensive is reg capture on many layers: too few doctors because of licensing and immigration restrictions, pharma restrictions on importation, tax incentives to bundle insurance with employer, the high cost of medical malpractice lawsuits and insurance, hospital incumbent regulation like fed funding or CONS, etc. None of those things are solved with a government program that maintains those restrictions. The only thing necessary is to literally do less. Cap malpractice, remove immigration and licensing restrictions for physicians, remove FDA limitations on imports, remove federal funding from colleges and hospitals, etc. That will drive price enormously in a short span of 5 years, while also reducing the amount of admin and funding cost in government. At the current market structure the only way I see a revolution in healthcare is with the Uberification of health: something that really spits in the eye of all regulation and gets things done anyway at cheap rates. Think telemedicine from 3rd world countries, generic drug imports through retail contraband, etc. I worked in the industry, i'm 100% sure that dereg is the way to go. > but homeowners are very concerned with quality of life — That's my original point. When an argument is made that nimby are doing this for money, I think its off-target.