One major issue with centrally planned healthcare is that the value of health is variable to the individual. Particularly beyond the line between technically de

One major issue with centrally planned healthcare is that the value of health is variable to the individual. Particularly beyond the line between technically dead and technically still alive. A poor, uninterested, or other valued[1] person would only sacrifice $N to improve their health beyond "still alive". A rich person, or highly interested, or other valued[2] person would sacrifice potentially many multiples of $N. Take Bryan Johnson[3] for example is willing to spend on many improvements to his life. For example, in Canada he'd be basically unable to do what he wants to do with his own money. As one such person I am happy to pay more for more. What I really think is needed here is improvements in contracts and transparency. For example, there should be a contractually binding price agreement (of which the prices themselves are publicly available to all including competitors) for any non-emergency non-urgent procedure. (If time is of the essence then we need to prioritize that, naturally) As an example of being willing to pay more, my insurance isn't willing to pay for the exploratory labs, and software platform, that function health built and provides for $499 a year. I'm willing to pay it, it has benefitted me over the standard annual physical, and to me it was worth $499. It also likely will save my insurance $1000s maybe $10000s over my life time too. (We discovered something concerning...) [1] - (eg a father who prioritizes spending on their kids) [2] - (eg a father who prioritizes being there for their kids later in their life) [3] - https://youtu.be/pfSFnFWb8X4 https://youtu.be/pfSFnFWb8X4