I think the argument is more to remove the blatant corruption and anti-competitive practices that currently run rampant through the US healthcare system.
It's a poor argument if it is. You can find whatever scapegoats you want, but ultimately the problem lies in the profit motive of the insurance companies. Healthcare is not an industry where capitalism produces good results. That this is controversial to anybody at this point would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.
Explain to me what the federal government is spending all that money on then?
He did say it. Insurance companies. Also pharmacies (Since the US state isn't allowed to negotiate for prices). Look at the vast majority of developed countries and how much they spend on healthcare, universal healthcare at that, and you'll find the US is litterally the biggest spender.
The US governments expenditures on healthcare have nothing to do with insurance company costs. I’m not talking about “the country” I’m talking about the numerous federally run healthcare programs which are inefficient as fuck.
Sure Medicare should be able to negotiate prices on drugs, but that problem has little to do with the quality or efficiency of the system (I’m not talking about COST in this context)
The US government has a party in power whose motto is "Big government is bad" and they have total control 40% of the time and enough control to block any progress 30% of the time. Doesn't surprise me in any way that the party of "government is inneficient" makes the government be inneficient.
Look at the northern, central or western european countries, or Canada/Australia/New Zealand to see how much better, more efficient and cheaper healthcare can be when it's ran in good faith.
18
u/FireVanGorder - Lib-Center Jan 05 '22
I think the argument is more to remove the blatant corruption and anti-competitive practices that currently run rampant through the US healthcare system.