Who hurts the US Healthcare system worse?

There is always going to be a fine balancing act. A strong monetary incentive can attract more talent, for example. Also, you could offer lower wages but decreased hours. This would attract more family-minded candidates.I think there is one ethos that socialized medicine has that the US profit driven system lacks. In socialized medicine you are also responsible to the public in a way that US doctors aren't. If you price gouge in the US, that's just capitalism. If you price gouge in the UK, you are going against the public good since those are public tax dollars you are taking.I just think there is a sense of responsibility that is lacking in the US healthcare system. I am not saying that doctors are not looking out for the well being of patients. What I am saying is that they don't care as much about the economic impacts that their business has on the US economy and on families.

To put it another way, if you have a product that the public, literally, can not live without, why would you ever sacrifice profits in order to make sure it is affordable to everyone?The laws of capitalism would say that you need to increase what you charge in order to maximize profits, not availability. If maximizing profits means out-pricing 10% of the public, then that is what you do, and that is exactly where we ended up in this country. The rampant dogma against socialism on the political right is what is preventing us from getting universal, single payer healthcare.

It means that there is a public agency that everyone qualifies to join by being a citizen. It is the same as now. If your insurance pays a certain amount, there is nothing stopping you from paying the doctor more, if you want to. Perhaps a better comparison would be Medicare supplemental insurance that you can buy from private carriers. You can still buy private insurance in the UK to supplement any perceived gaps in the NHS coverage, if I remember correctly.

The biggest improvement is that no one can be denied coverage, and there is a cap on how much health insurance companies can charge. Before the ACA, we had a situation where people who needed health care the most were the least likely to have access to health care.This has been balanced out by requiring everyone to purchase health insurance, including those that were least likely to purchase insurance in the past.The ACA did succeed on these two major fronts: get everyone covered, and have everyone paying into it. The real question now is why do we need a middle man?

I did use a misguided and sweeping generalization. It is true that there will still be some that slip through the system, but the vast majority who were not covered before are now covered. It would also cause the Koch brothers' heads to explode, which may actually be a good thing.

I don't know which is worse, a democrat who claims that they are for socialized healthcare but won't propose a law because of a lack of public support, or a Republican who says that they will never vote for any socialized healthcare no matter how much support there is for it.The end result is the same.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.