A thing that sucks in both systems can not legitimately be used to argue against only one of them.
So, how about all of the not-California parts of the US that have the same kinds of problems (which is, last I checked, more or less "all of them")?
Because, the thing is, only one of my examples was, you know, from California.
... and had no PT within the county with a <10 week wait time.
I guess we're close to Canada though, so maybe it's contagious?
So sure, the amount of patients is pretty much guaranteed to be higher once they can afford the care. If you optimise only for wait times, then the obvious solution is to have no doctors and 0 wait time.
Whether or no wait time varies greatly, the overall quality of care can be assessed in terms of patient outcomes life expectancy which are generally very similar while spending significantly less money. In fact many countries with socialized healthcare actually surpass the US on some factors like infant mortality, in part because the US has a higher poverty rate and those in poverty have less access to healthcare.
Do you think this doesn't happen in the US?
If you're about to say "but in the US we can pay for healthcare", well that's true everywhere. Anyone with enough money can pay for healthcare.
Yes, like I said, anybody who can afford it can travel to get healthcare elsewhere.
Travelling from US to UK and paying 150% of the English tariff price for health care turns out to often be cheaper than getting care in the US, even if you include the travel costs.
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/waiting-your-turn-wa...
Take 1000 men over 50 and give them PSA screening for prostate cancer for about 11 years.
Take 1000 different men over 50 and don't give them PSA screening for prostate cancer for about 11 years.
For the group without screening about 7 die from prostate cancer. But for the group who do have screening we see the same number of deaths. The screening hasn't prevented deaths from prostate cancer.
The group without screening didn't have any false alarms and didn't have any needless biopsies. 160 men in the group with screening had false alarms and unnecessary biopsies. 20 men in the screening group had treatment (which can include incontinence and impotence) for non-progressive prostate cancer.
https://www.harding-center.mpg.de/en/fact-boxes/early-detect...
Over-testing leads to over-diagnosis which leads to over treatment, and harm is caused at each step.
Margaret McCartney or Gerd Giggerenzer talk about this.