It's so far from being the solution that the majority of the Western world implements it as a solution to the problem, and the citizens of those nations live longer and spend less, cumulatively, on healthcare than the United States.

> SOCIALIZING IS NEVER A GOOD OPTION

I mean... do you even knowledge? Words? Logic? Think?

Counterpoint number one: transit.

Counterpoint number two: utilities.

Counterpoint number three: healthcare.

In all three of those natural monopoly, little elasticity, high upfront costs, "goods", we have plenty of examples of countries and localities with "socialised" (centrally managed by a public entity, subsidised to cover some to most of the costs) and with "private" ones. Unquestionably "socialised" ones in similarly developed countries perform much better - lower cost in total and to consumers, better coverage, better outcomes.

You can have all things that make sense be managed centrally, and everything else left to a free (ish) market. It's not a binary choice all or nothing.

The UK is a perfect example because they privatised transit and utilities, and the result is a steep decline in quality with increasing costs, and that's not even counting externalities like water utilities dumping sewage in rivers and the sea.

But also, the free market is not the solution either, for inelastic goods dealing with life/death.

See, price of insulin.

OR, at least make a free market for real. Make insurance companies compete across state lines, make charges transparent not a surprise gatcha after the fact.

Nobody would take their car to get fixed and accept something like "I know you came in for oil change, but we decided to replace the break rotors, here is a bill, you have to pay or we don't give the car back".

Sadly, all the 'free market' politicians, are in the pocket of the industry and work to prevent a 'free market'.