That only applies to companies accepting only (or virtually only) government health insurance, of which there are either few or none. In reality, it’s part of the reason treatment is so expensive. They charge private entities a lot more to make up for the government mandated rates. The law is that you can’t charge the government more than anyone else.

And this is after we swore we would never let another Rwanda or another Serbia happen.

Actually, this raises a very interesting point to parallel the author’s. By the same logic, a pacifist society must be willing to go to war to protect that pacifism.

> And this is after we swore we would never let another Rwanda or another Serbia happen.

What on earth does this have to do with health insurance?

I’m sorry, I was editing another reply in a tab on my iPhone and something went wrong.

US healthcare spending is almost equally split between government and private insurance.

US government spends more per capita on healthcare than eg UK government, and doesn't have universal coverage and has worse results across a range of indicators.

https://visual.ons.gov.uk/how-does-uk-healthcare-spending-co...

US tax-payers are subsidising the US's terrible healthcare.

The US has the best cancer and heart disease survival rates in the world. But spending levels are still not commensurate with indicators.

One possible explanation is that a lot of money is spent on healthcare toward the end of life, and much of it is just chasing a sliver of hope. In a system where people spend according to their priorities, instead of to improve some statistical indicator of system-wide efficacy, 'irrational' spending like this could be much higher in the US.