> Are you saying the US system has more government involvement than a socialist system where the government pays for most health care? I'm not. > Are you sayi

> Are you saying the US system has more government involvement than a socialist system where the government pays for most health care? I'm not. > Are you saying the participation of private business (insurance and providers) is irrelevant to the equation? I'm not. > If the US is less socialist than the "socialized medicine" systems, and socialism leads to increased costs and reduced quality, then that should be reflected in the numbers Yes, I get what you're saying, just like I got it before. The US healthcare system is fucked in its own special ways which are different from the way Finland's system is fucked. Both systems involve heavy government involvement though, which is something you should consider. Again, the point here is government involvement, because the more of that there is in something, the worse it will be for the general populace. This is why you don't want "universal healthcare". It's guaranteed to turn to shit sooner or later, and in the economic conditions the Western world finds itself in, it's bound to be sooner. I'm not saying the US system is an example of "socialism", for whatever value of socialism we might want to use here. But it's most certainly not an example of little-to-no government involvement either. Your healthcare system's costs are outrageously high because of the way it's structured (through government involvement). It just happens to be a way to reach higher costs than what other countries have "achieved", but that doesn't mean I'm wrong about anything I've said.