-
getting private companies to provide aspects of public services is cheap stopgap to deliver services
Why does the US spend more per capita on health care than every other country, then? Surely they should be rolling in these savings. The US government actually spends more the Canadian government. The US government is effectively subsidizing a for-profit system at a cost higher than a nationalised system.
-
I found a really good breakdown explaining this which I'll look for and post. iirc the main thing is actually the admin burden of the system. As an after thought I wondered if had almost turned into a Keynesian system of sorts.
The US system is nuts though, and so deeply scewed against the less well off. From my limited experience if you've got decent healthcare you get much better service than the NHS. However, it's not cheap and the bewildering choice you have is a double edged sword. There is clearly over treatment - which no doubt adds to the cost. Pretty sure there was an issue with Virgin doing this a while back.
EDIT: Here is is: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/080615/6-reasons-healthcare-so-expensive-us.asp 25% is related to admin.
hugo7
I don't know what ACA's are. Google will only give me Obama's Affordable Care Act results.
My point still stands. Whether or not it's a good long term policy, getting private companies to provide aspects of public services is cheap stopgap to deliver services. It is not the same as dismantling a free at the point of delivery universal health system and trying to kill people.
I'd be interested in seeing the sources you're referencing for the claim that private health providers will only be accountable to shareholders - and properly understanding what you actually mean by that.