State politicians are much cheaper, and no one from the New York Times pokes around when you buy off the state representative of East Bumfuck, Montana.
Slavery was estimated at ~12% and "hey, you need to lose a few % of your margin and actually pay those people" started a war.
Now, there's an argument to be made about ideology, geographic concentration of industry, etc. doing a fair bit of lifting kicking that off (their own neighbors telling them to stop surely would have gone over better than a bunch of smarmy northerners in their ivory towers telling them the same thing). But the fact remains that you cannot make a large fraction of the country take a haircut without causing strife.
The only way to fix this "nicely" at this point is to boil the frog over decades.
Most people would consider money a resource, and quite a few rural hospitals are closing because of a lack of that specific resource.
> you'll discover how you really DONT want the government to tell you which patients to serve
Yeah, wait until you hear about private for-profit insurers doing that instead.
It's a money problem because the medicare doesn't pay enough to hosptals, and boomers are all on medicare.
So your government run healthcare is destorying rural hospitals.
Sure you have. Copays and deductibles are still a thing. I wish my kids didn't have medical bills!