Compared to Europe it does though. I.e. the us healthcare system does't get most of it's payment through taxation. Thats an important distinctions.

I guess.

Medicaid and Medicare are more than a third of spending and don't necessarily cover the total costs of the care provided under the programs (any unmet costs are a hidden tax). The VA is not nearly as expansive as those programs but is another couple whole percentage points of US health spending.

And you've also got Tri Care and some BIA stuff, and state expenditures that are outside of Medicaid.

Not sure we are discussion the same thing.

My point is that a singlepayer system payed by the taxpayers and budgeted by the politicians isn't making money it can only spend less money.

A system like the american overall can make money, it's it's goal to profit.

That's the difference between whether it's a market driven market or not IMO.

For me, to be "market driven", you have to have easy entry on the supply side and not have huge amounts of mandated care on the demand side.

The US has all sorts of constraints on the supply side and a lot of the demand side is treated under various mandates.

Without easy entry on the supply side, there can't really be a market response to changes in demand, hence not really market driven.

When care is provided to comply with government mandates and incentives rather than because it can be priced above cost, not a market driven transaction.

We were talking relative to ex. europe. Not some ideological defintion. Then the US isn't a market driven economy.

Thats not a useful way to look at things.

Creation of new supply seems more in the "words mean things" bucket than the ideological bucket.