Have you lived in Europe? One example, in order to see an expert doctor, you literally have to make an appointment months in advance so alot of people abuse the "emergency room" service. I remember people from Holland going to Belgium and vice versa thinking they would be helped faster. Turned out both had the same waiting line problem.
Medicaire for all is more like Mediocry for all in Europe.
Do you really think there aren't many poor people in Europe? Do you really think everybody is getting decent healthcare in Europe?
Again, regulating healthcare and education entities stricter would be alot better than thinking government will do a magical job.
Firstly, that - the waiting list issue - varies greatly between different European countries. Mostly depending on just how much money they put into the system.
But you do, in the end, either have to ration by wealth or by a waiting-list. Without infinite resources there's going to be
some form of rationing.
Waiting lists can, and are, modified by perceived level of need or urgency of care.
The fact is, I would suggest, that there's a greater chance of getting a degree of consensus about what constitutes 'need' when it comes to health-care than for most other things. Most people do accept that trauma care for someone who's just been hit by a truck is a greater priority than tatoo-removal.
So health care seems a special case when it comes to state involvement.
And of course there are still dilemmas, arguments over the efficacy of a newly-developed drug vs the extreme cost. And state-funded health services do end up having to do calculations about 'quality of life years'. Still seems to be better than just asking how much money the patient has, though.
Also, I don't know from first-hand experience, but some Americans have told me they _still_ have to deal with waiting, because every time they need something done they have to first go through a process of disputing it with their health insurer, who will drag their feet and try to find reasons not to pay for it.
And in calling for 'regulation' you are already departing strongly from the conservative script (which calls such regulation 'red tape', and relentlessly pushes for it to be removed).
You are also failing to notice the poor track record of governments in trying to 'regulate' things like this, and provide services through contracts drawn up between their (not very-well-paid) lawyers and the (much better-paid) lawyers of the private sector.
The US system just doesn't appear to work all that well. And I don't think it's _solely_ about health-care and insurance companies being predatory. It's also just quite inefficient because there's so much duplication of effort and unavoidably such high admin costs, doing all the work associated with having a 'market'. "Regulation" could make that inefficiency worse rather than better.
I do accept there's an argument that high US health care costs might help fund more drug research than would otherwise happen. Still seems an inefficient way to achieve that end, given how much gets eaten up with what are effectively administration costs.
Never mind the main point of this linked article, the bar-chart (which I can't figure out how to embed here) says quite a lot. US expenditure double everyone else's, with worse results than any of them.
UK NHS gets results between the US and everyone else, but on the "upside" spends the square-root of ah heck-all.
That probably reflects the politics of getting funding for a fully state-run-and-funded system in a mostly capitalist country. I do wonder if it might get even more challenging in a society that is badly divided over racial politics. I think it's harder to get something like that to work if a country doesn't feel a strong sense of common identity. So I don't know what model would be best for the US to aim at, but it seems quite clear the current system isn't terribly efficient.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...medicare-for-all-plan-pus-democrats-in-a-bind