People seem awfully confused about who pays for healthcare in the US so let's be clear: either the government or the market (consumers) pays for healthcare, or they do it in tandem.

I don't have a view on who should pay for it, but there are only 3 categories of payers in healthcare: 1 government and 2 private (insurance and self-pay). The compensation is funded by one of those sources.

People also seem awfully confused about how much the government currently spends on healthcare: the US government currently spends roughly as much per-capita on healthcare as socialized systems that cover the entire cost of healthcare for their citizens, and have better measured outcomes.

The crippling healthcare costs borne by individuals entirely consist of rent-seeking. It's also important to say that a lot of that money comes back out in salaries for the massive workforce required for the unnecessary administrative overhead, adding to the economy, and of course in non-imported luxury goods purchased by the rent-seekers themselves.

So, to summarize, the person you replied to above asked what is the reasonable alternative to socialized healthcare that does not include people dying in the streets of treatable maladies. And through your explanation it appears as though you replied with a tautological statement that had no bearing on the question being asked.

So, what is it that you are actually trying to say?

They did not ask 'what', they asked 'if' an alternative exists, invoking the classic 'dying in the streets' motif.

>Is there a reasonable alternative? I'm not trolling, but letting people die of treatable maladies doesn't seem like the right move.

I answered a tautological statement with a tautological question based on the logic the poster omitted.

Can you tell me who besides the government or the market (ie consumers) will prevent people from 'dying in the streets'? Perhaps by kidnapping another country's doctors and compelling them to provide care...

>I'm not trolling

I'm a little offended that you'd assume my question to be tautological, by which I in turn assume you mean rhetorical. Seems to have generated some good discussion.

I feel like even that confuses the issue. The government can only pay for something with money it takes from consumers.