@freemo
[ splitting the thread]

i used to soft-propose rearchitecting medicine to solve the problem. i looked at insurance as basically a cope for high prices and because its a cope doing anything with insurance is the wrong answer.

part of what hurts medicine costs is that a long time ago a majority of medical schools were shut down when the AMA was consolidating power. when i peeked in to the requirements to be a doctor i saw people gloating about their "competitive medical schools" and well.

medicine is not a competitive sport so why is competition being glorified to train medical workers?

and also, there seem to be a lot of inefficiencies overall. i wanted to rearchitect it so people were trained in skillset packages so they could be useful sooner, ex. someone has to first have basic nursing packages to be an MD, which already allows them to work close to their target in the field but also means they aren't just dead weight for nearly as long.

maybe i'm dumb and don't understand the problem, but i really think basing the training on skills packages so people can get certified and start working sooner would take a lot of pressure off our shit. and insurance would absolutely not be subsidized because that's just encouraging people not to solve the problem.

@icedquinn Since this was split off the main thread ill repeat my response here:

To me that doesnt solve any of the problems we have with either a free-market system or universal healthcare.

The problems as i see it is universal healthcare takes away choice on multiple levels, both of if you pay for insurance, and which insurance you get, as well as the effects of that (such as selection of medications which wound up being bound to what insurance covers and thus certain medications wont be on the market if not covered), as well as quality of insurance and care which comes from being able to select different insurance, or none at all, if you dont feel you get value. Basically it lacks the competitiveness to bring quality.

Now the problem with free market is cost, there is a greed and profit angle that the owners of insurance companies want to make as much money as they can at the expense of others. Normally supply and demand strikes a balance in other areas but when it comes to health insurance demand is infinite because a dying person will pay anything to live in a healthy state for just a few more days. So with supply and demand equations broken you dont have a healthy free market.

Any solution need to address both of these concerns without compromise. The answer to this is simply in my mind.. freemarket, co-op only insurance with strong welfare to assist those too poor to buy into it with "healthcare stamps" similar to food stamps one can spend on healthcare.

In a co-op system the owners of an insurance company are the people who have policies at that insurance company, and everyone is an equal owner. So the greed aspect is wholly eliminated. Any extra money the company makes goes right back into the policy owners pockets. So the issues with free-market are resolved. Since the system is free market based it also resolves the issue with universal healthcare, that is, there is selection pressure that ensures quality care is given as people can always switch to the insurance companies that provide the best quality of coverage, and has the best doctors within its network.