I've said this before: Society has already made it's choice. Society doesn't want people dying in the streets. Once you've made that decision, universal healthcare in some form or another just flows from that. The US has a form of it right now, it's just extremely perverse and expensive.
So I agree with the parent: it's not enough to just say that health care is important, therefore it should be single payer. There are too many counter examples for such a simple argument to pass muster. Discussions of health care policy need to start with a detailed and honest accouting of the health care market specifically.
And nearly all governments provide countless services from welfare, public housing, shelters, the foster care system, food stamps, etc for that as well.
Society has already made the decision about socialized healthcare; the only real question is how to implement it. The current implementation where you have socialized healthcare but deny it's existence is the worst possible and least efficient system.
The features of 'basic care' that I think everyone should have:
* Everyone has it
* It's only paid for by taxes
* There are still systems in place for keeping costs low.
* MOST doctors in the area should be options for care, assuming they're open.
* /bad/ doctors (those who don't produce good results) shouldn't get to stay doctors.
* The malpractice part of the equation is covered by a combination of
* * social disability (care for the victim) and
* * criminal justice (doctor is guilty of malpractice).
* Government care/doctors (military docs) should be possible.
* Mass bulk procurement / manufacture of basic supplies.
* No more billing, lawyers fighting for/against costs, etc.
* Some kind of auction bid for the services of doctors performing classes of common work.
I thought this was called a Dutch Auction, but it seems that what I'm thinking of is some kind of combination of second-price and other types of auction. In this case the buyer of services (the government) wants to buy a projection of X units within a given geographic region and wants the option of exceeding that by a factor of Y.
X units would set the minimum cost paid out (doctors would be paid for the minimum work they're expected to do irrespective of need), but more work might be required. Disaster rates would be a third category of bid.
The way that the cost for a procedure would be set would look something like this.
* Geographic regions are defined.
* Doctors/Clinics within all regions report their current and potential capacity
* *as well as the rate they would prefer to charge for known services.
* Expected rates of need for regions are calculated.
If there is major discrepancy in price between areas, investigation of collusion and/or re-locating those who can to other areas for some procedures could be determined.
This shouldn't be about historical narratives or ideology, that's largely why public health insurance is dead-on-arrival in US politics. Both sides are terribly ideological about it and unrealistic as a result.
The healthcare industry is already the most heavily regulated of all industries in the US. Saying it's been held back from government intervention is equally a myth as the US modern history as a free-market friendly place is a myth.
This debate should be about whether certain market niches make the more sense as public entities. NOT as an example of "free markets" failing as a general rule and trying to sell the idea "you just need to accept that government knows best" (I'm paraphrasing).
Rather it should be sold as an exception to the rule. The simple fact is government should not be in the vast majority of industry. But healthcare (specifically health insurance) has many unique and perverse incentives making it poorly suited for markets and the public alternative offers plenty of benefits to a society, including a capitalist society. Healthy workers are good workers, small business is less burdened with expensive healthcare packages, the morality of treating a seriously sick person who can't work then billing their family $10k, etc, etc.
I believe there is still a good argument to be made in favour of public health insurance without alienating those who put their trust in markets. It's a unique exception and is already far from operating as a free market in the US. So why not bite the bullet and entirely subsidize it for everyone? That is a much smaller ask than the typical democrat "corporations are evil" pitch on this matter.
Messaging is important.