If they are going to keep the currently healthcare insurance system in place. Otherwise you are dealing with state-subsidized monopolists at the state level for insurance. Without some aspect of competition there is nothing bidding prices down in the market. In this instance, market power is bad.
Edit: just pointing out that we mostly agree here. US healthcare could be reduced cost-wise by proper socialised health-care, or increased competition between insurers across state lines and proper anti-trust legislation. Would require a shift in the culture within the govt. and policy makers too, as well as laws in place to remove conflicts of interest and any back-door hand-outs.
With respect to the cost of medical items, I agree, that is a outrage. That's due to lobbyists and the bizarre pseudo-governmental/corporate aspect of price setting, I would suspect. Either way though, this is something people cannot opt out of. That's through government decree, and yes, I agree that health care is a price inelastic good and people will pay whatever they need to pay to stay alive. Agree with military contracts. Seems similar.
In short: if you want some form of insurance/private sector arrangement, you need a lot of competition to reduce profitability and bid down prices. Otherwise just socialise the lot like the UK. Sure there will be queues down the street for some things, and you'll never get as good care as if it's a privately run practice, but at least you avoid some of the pitfalls of the US model.
PS: With respect to borrowing, interest repayments, deficits etc. The US is still paying down the late 1990s/early 2000s. The problem started a long time before Bush. Bush didn't help but it's foolish to pretend that wasn't anything other than a continued trend. Also
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2017 06:02AM by istirith.