I think the problem with never-ending healthcare costs is that it isn’t run enough like a business. Any normal business decreases costs to survive. It appears healthcare is at 20% of GDP and rising forever.
Option E is to run healthcare entirely as a business. Payment up front, and refusal to treat anyone without payment.
Option S is to take option E, but avoid immediately attributable deaths. Treat somebody at the emergency room, even if they don't have a line of credit with them. Patch them up enough to walk out the door, but don't treat the underlying issues without additional payment.
Option G is to treat patients before they reach death's door, when it is cheaper to do so. To give the preventative care that keeps costs down, even if somebody isn't able to pay for it. To treat public health as a public good, rather than as a series of purchases.
Option E is evil, to let people die unnecessarily. Option S isn't openly evil, but is stupid. It is where the US is now, and inflates the costs tremendously. Option G is to actually be good.
But a moral argument could certainly be made for option G.
I feel like it's not only a moral argument, instead it's a better alignment of those who pay and are served by the system. At present, the goals of insurers and providers are very different from patients, partly due to profit-seeking, partly due to the disconnect in who pays for it (49% of US population receives employer-covered healthcare).
in option G, how much $ do we spend on terminally ill patients in order for them to have a few more days with their loved ones?
or how about smokers who will as a result of their actions will cost spades more than "good souls"? or type 2 diabetics on dialysis?
this false trilemma is largely useless and only presents one side of a moral choice and even then ignores the other prickly of it (read: the people paying for this glorious utopia and where the lines are drawn when it comes to saying no)
We already pay for our healthcare in the US, we just do it predominantly via employer-contributed job benefits, and existing Medicare/Medicaid. The money for the bulk of healthcare is already there, but there are people falling through cracks all the time.
Is your position that bringing everyone's healthcare up to Medicare's baseline is too expensive? Where is the extra cost coming from?
That is very bad reasoning. Most things don't get cheaper when they get nationalized. There is some evidence healthcare may be different in this regard, but the point is: costs are not invariant under nationalization.
> Is your position that bringing everyone's healthcare up to Medicare's baseline is too expensive? Where is the extra cost coming from?
Cost of providing the existing service is not the only cost worth considering. The other issue is opportunity cost of innovation. Right now there are powerful incentives for people to innovate in the healthcare space, particularly in pharmaceuticals. But also in prosthetics and the procedural space. Nationalization is likely to crimp those incentives, and thereby lead to less innovation over time.
Why not just tax the cigarettes and subsidise bike roads instead of car roads?
Zero. They would be explicitly avoided care if they are known being unable to return to work nor parent somebody (higher-order parenting such as grandparents, uncles, aunts count too).
Efficiency matters, of course, and a higher fraction of GDP spent on healthcare isn't per se better, either.
One problem with private provision of anything is that a company only cares about the revenue it can actually capture itself. Nationalised provision, using tax as a revenue stream, can look at whether something is beneficial on the whole even if it isn't directly paid for.