I have a nasty medical condition that necessitates ER trips. I know all three ERs. There’s the good one, the OK one, and the terrible one.
The problem is I don’t get to chose my own insurance. My employer does.
I know exactly which doctors, specialists, and ERs are best for me.
Doesn’t matter. My employer, who is remote and employs nobody else in the state, has determined who I can and can’t see.
And they’ve done it completely blindly.
It’s a messed up system.
But the idea that people won’t avoid bad hospitals, including ERs, is untrue.
Large organizations can look out for themselves, Governments, in an ideal world, should entirely exist to serve the people and should also be comprised of them. The problem with elections is that it, by and large, dissuades competent people who would otherwise be good members of government and attracts among the worst kind of person who is hungry for power which lobbies play on to get their way.
I do get your point in seeing regulations and other healthcare BS as racketeering stifling competition.
There isn't much choice right now. Make the wrong choice, e.g. which emergency room, you might have to wrestle with unimaginably huge mystery bills. Again perhaps that's the racketeering you bring up.
But to me, it seems like markets - if we have to concede that language - as huge as nationwide healthcare create way too big of $ barriers for upstarts to try and come in and compete even if we had very low bureaucracy. I personally think a nationalized system is the best solution and I think we can come up with some hybrid Americanizations that introduce more competition within the system.
If the proposed reconciliation passes it gets us closer. just keep expanding medicare/aide until everyone is covered. And they are trying to allow drug price negotiation e.g. competition - which is insane that's not legal right now. Baby steps. But IMHO adding to the albatross costs way more than doing the hard thing of a near complete new system.
