Sorry but you can go to a doctor that is out of network, you just have to pay to see thst doctor which is exactly what happened in the old days. Next try! And by the way choosing abplan that has a network is a choice not a requirement. See, the free market still exists. People just have to make choices which is what always happened. In fact you can go without insurance and see any doctor you want. Free market for sure if you are willing to pay for it. In fact that is exactly where I was in the days when a pre existing condition allowed insurance companies not to provide insurance.
No it isn't. The scale at which a system operates makes a significant difference in how efficient, transparent, and responsive it is.
Not sure what you mean. There are many successful countries who operate at a much smaller scale than the USA, including most of the countries with socialized healthcare.
When you get sick the hospital has got you by the balls and the insurance companies have got you by the d!ck at the same time. You don't stand a chance. That's why a market system for health care does not work at all. It would be like having a market based system for air.
So the government is not the people? I just want to make sure we're clear on that. The government is something separate from society?
How do we identify dictatorships from non-dictatorships? Hitler was elected by the people, right? The US government is elected by the people as well. How do we know that it's not a dictatorship?
People need all sorts of things, not just healthcare. They need food and water. They need electronics and automobiles. Yet somehow the market manages to provide all these things at fairly reasonable prices. Almost all Americans have adequate access to them. And to the extent that some do not, this can be attributed in large part to government interference in the market. So if people need things like food, water, electronics, automobiles, etc., then why aren't the firms who provide these goods charging whatever price they want for them?
You're the one who thinks these systems can be applied to a country with 320 million people, not me. So why would I have to give an example of such a model?
So you believe in human rights? Doesn't that imply that "society", however you're defining, should not infringe on those rights? Otherwise, why call them "rights" at all?
There is no way to have a society that does not infringe on some rights. You have to accept the small amount of bad to get the overwhelming good
