> One just just says that private healthcare leads to better results And this is a clear case of ideological, not scientific thinking. From an example prespec

> One just just says that private healthcare leads to better results And this is a clear case of ideological, not scientific thinking. From an example prespective, the next 23 richest countries behind America, all have public healthcare. From a mathematical prespective, healthcare is a natural monopoly and therefore not bound by market forces. From a legislation prespective, free laissex faire medical practice is dangerous and impractical therefore regulation is needed, once you interced to that level, you benefit from integration and monolithic procedural systems. And from a larger economic view, by tying employment to healthcare you reduce labour strength, which means uncompetitive companies can run for longer by keeping their workers hostage, if they could leave for another company the economy at large would benefit. Other than believe on paper that gubernamental overreach is inefficient, there is no angle you can justify private healthcare as the sole means of addressing a public need. Even the few arguments that are still used to defend the system such as "wait times" hold little wait when you look at the 40% of Americans who skip recommended surgeries due to cost. Wait times are lower because tons of people are not being provided a service. Which is inarguably much worse than waiting, hence why America has lower living standards and lifespan than the countries they bemoan the waits of.