Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money

[frigidweirdo]

I don't understand how giving the government that much control over your life is the "moral and right" thing to do.

What kind of person puts that kind of faith in government?

Here's the difference.

If I have a single payer system, I don't need to go out and find health insurance. I don't need to worry that the insurance company will decide I don't have the right type of cancer to be insured, I don't have to worry if I was born with a illness that I'll never be able to afford to treat what I was born with.

Essentially who would want to put their trust in insurance companies?

If I have a US system, I have to go out and find health insurance. Do i go for the one I can afford which won't cover most things? Will I pay more than I can realistically afford? What if I lose my job? Suddenly I'm not covered, which means I have to be more of a slave to my job that would otherwise be so.

You can choose to put your faith in people who have been elected to serve, or you can put your faith in insurance companies who are somewhere down the bottom of the pile with lawyers in the trustworthy stakes.

I think we'll end up with single payer. I know you and I aren't going to like it once we get it. The single payer utopia you have in your imagination is not what you and I are going to get. I wish it weren't so.

I think you'll agree with me in about 10 years. Hope we're both still alive to compare notes.

Single payer utopia? I'm very aware of what single payer means, thank you. I've seen it good and I've seen it bad. But at the end of the day, whether good or bad, you're going to get treated. Now, the issue is how do you make sure it stays good? In the UK the problem is that the Tories keep saying it's too expensive. Yeah, it's much cheaper than the US system, and they're complaining it's too expensive. The reality is they want a US system and they know they have to make the NHS non-viable in order to impose a US style system. So, the NHS goes up under Labour and down under the Tories.

In France and places like that they have health insurance run by not for profit companies. The state pays for most of the costs, 70% in the case of France.

I won't agree with you. I've lived under both systems and I know which I prefer.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Single payer works all over the world.

All life matters!!! It shouldn't matter if you're poor or rich.

 

[deanrd]

Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money
By ROBERT H. FRANK at the NY Times

Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money

"SNIP............

Sometimes described as Medicare for all, single-payer is a system in which a public agency handles health care financing while the delivery of care remains largely in private hands.

Discussions of the California measure have stalled, however, in the wake of preliminary estimates pegging the cost of the program as greater than the entire state government budget. Similar cost concerns derailed single-payer proposals in Colorado and Vermont.

Voters need to understand that this cost objection is specious. That’s because, as experience in many countries has demonstrated, the total cost of providing health coverage under the single-payer approach is actually substantially lower than under the current system in the United States. It is a bedrock economic principle that if we can find a way to do something more efficiently, it’s possible for everyone to come out ahead.

By analogy, suppose that your state’s government took over road maintenance from the county governments within it, in the process reducing total maintenance costs by 30 percent. Your state taxes would obviously have to go up under this arrangement.

But if roads would be as well maintained as before, would that be a reason to oppose the move? Clearly not, since the resulting cost savings would reduce your county taxes by more than your state taxes went up. Likewise, it makes no sense to oppose single-payer on the grounds that it would require additional tax revenue. In each case, the resulting gains in efficiency would leave you with greater effective purchasing power than before.

And it saves lives..It is the moral and right thing to do.

/---- Single payer in Britain is pulling the plug on the sick baby rather than let Pres Trump bring him here for treatment. Now if that was your child.......


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Thanks you beat me to it.


.

Because a brain dead baby can have a bright future with the GOP.

 

[williepete]

I don't understand how giving the government that much control over your life is the "moral and right" thing to do.

What kind of person puts that kind of faith in government?

Here's the difference.

If I have a single payer system, I don't need to go out and find health insurance. I don't need to worry that the insurance company will decide I don't have the right type of cancer to be insured, I don't have to worry if I was born with a illness that I'll never be able to afford to treat what I was born with.

Essentially who would want to put their trust in insurance companies?

If I have a US system, I have to go out and find health insurance. Do i go for the one I can afford which won't cover most things? Will I pay more than I can realistically afford? What if I lose my job? Suddenly I'm not covered, which means I have to be more of a slave to my job that would otherwise be so.

You can choose to put your faith in people who have been elected to serve, or you can put your faith in insurance companies who are somewhere down the bottom of the pile with lawyers in the trustworthy stakes.

I think we'll end up with single payer. I know you and I aren't going to like it once we get it. The single payer utopia you have in your imagination is not what you and I are going to get. I wish it weren't so.

I think you'll agree with me in about 10 years. Hope we're both still alive to compare notes.

Single payer utopia? I'm very aware of what single payer means, thank you. I've seen it good and I've seen it bad. But at the end of the day, whether good or bad, you're going to get treated. Now, the issue is how do you make sure it stays good? In the UK the problem is that the Tories keep saying it's too expensive. Yeah, it's much cheaper than the US system, and they're complaining it's too expensive. The reality is they want a US system and they know they have to make the NHS non-viable in order to impose a US style system. So, the NHS goes up under Labour and down under the Tories.

In France and places like that they have health insurance run by not for profit companies. The state pays for most of the costs, 70% in the case of France.

I won't agree with you. I've lived under both systems and I know which I prefer.

I appreciate your experience in the matter and your contribution to this discussion. Your experience had been good. Mine bad. You acknowledge there is good and bad parts. I'd like to hear more from you.

From what I've heard of the French system, I admire.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money
By ROBERT H. FRANK at the NY Times

Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money

"SNIP............

Sometimes described as Medicare for all, single-payer is a system in which a public agency handles health care financing while the delivery of care remains largely in private hands.

Discussions of the California measure have stalled, however, in the wake of preliminary estimates pegging the cost of the program as greater than the entire state government budget. Similar cost concerns derailed single-payer proposals in Colorado and Vermont.

Voters need to understand that this cost objection is specious. That’s because, as experience in many countries has demonstrated, the total cost of providing health coverage under the single-payer approach is actually substantially lower than under the current system in the United States. It is a bedrock economic principle that if we can find a way to do something more efficiently, it’s possible for everyone to come out ahead.

By analogy, suppose that your state’s government took over road maintenance from the county governments within it, in the process reducing total maintenance costs by 30 percent. Your state taxes would obviously have to go up under this arrangement.

But if roads would be as well maintained as before, would that be a reason to oppose the move? Clearly not, since the resulting cost savings would reduce your county taxes by more than your state taxes went up. Likewise, it makes no sense to oppose single-payer on the grounds that it would require additional tax revenue. In each case, the resulting gains in efficiency would leave you with greater effective purchasing power than before.

And it saves lives..It is the moral and right thing to do.

/---- Single payer in Britain is pulling the plug on the sick baby rather than let Pres Trump bring him here for treatment. Now if that was your child.......


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Thanks you beat me to it.


.

Because a brain dead baby can have a bright future with the GOP.

Yet 50 million dead baby's aborted that would of voted Democrat..


You dumb fucks have to kill your own and then get the bright idea to import millions of illegals to boost your voting ..

Insane.


.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I don't understand how giving the government that much control over your life is the "moral and right" thing to do.

What kind of person puts that kind of faith in government?

Here's the difference.

If I have a single payer system, I don't need to go out and find health insurance. I don't need to worry that the insurance company will decide I don't have the right type of cancer to be insured, I don't have to worry if I was born with a illness that I'll never be able to afford to treat what I was born with.

Essentially who would want to put their trust in insurance companies?

If I have a US system, I have to go out and find health insurance. Do i go for the one I can afford which won't cover most things? Will I pay more than I can realistically afford? What if I lose my job? Suddenly I'm not covered, which means I have to be more of a slave to my job that would otherwise be so.

You can choose to put your faith in people who have been elected to serve, or you can put your faith in insurance companies who are somewhere down the bottom of the pile with lawyers in the trustworthy stakes.

I think we'll end up with single payer. I know you and I aren't going to like it once we get it. The single payer utopia you have in your imagination is not what you and I are going to get. I wish it weren't so.

I think you'll agree with me in about 10 years. Hope we're both still alive to compare notes.

Single payer utopia? I'm very aware of what single payer means, thank you. I've seen it good and I've seen it bad. But at the end of the day, whether good or bad, you're going to get treated. Now, the issue is how do you make sure it stays good? In the UK the problem is that the Tories keep saying it's too expensive. Yeah, it's much cheaper than the US system, and they're complaining it's too expensive. The reality is they want a US system and they know they have to make the NHS non-viable in order to impose a US style system. So, the NHS goes up under Labour and down under the Tories.

In France and places like that they have health insurance run by not for profit companies. The state pays for most of the costs, 70% in the case of France.

I won't agree with you. I've lived under both systems and I know which I prefer.

I appreciate your experience in the matter and your contribution to this discussion. Your experience had been good. Mine bad. You acknowledge there is good and bad parts. I'd like to hear more from you.

From what I've heard of the French system, I admire.

The point is that single payer can be good. But it also needs to be protected. Firstly how much money is going to be spent? The US federal govt spends MORE per capita on healthcare than the British govt spends. Yeah, you got that right, the NHS costs less than the US govt trying to plug the gaps in the US system. How is that possible?

Well it's possible because so many people are on the take. In the NHS it's much, much harder to be on the take. The govt can buy from a position of advantage, not like in the US where pharma companies come along and say "hey, new drug, costs 10 times more than the old one which does the same thing" and they buy the new drug because.... they don't give a damn.

If the UK spend 9 to 9.5% of GDP on the NHS then it would be a really, really good system. As it is the Tories are reducing the amount spent and it's falling apart.

 

[deanrd]

Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money
By ROBERT H. FRANK at the NY Times

Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money

"SNIP............

Sometimes described as Medicare for all, single-payer is a system in which a public agency handles health care financing while the delivery of care remains largely in private hands.

Discussions of the California measure have stalled, however, in the wake of preliminary estimates pegging the cost of the program as greater than the entire state government budget. Similar cost concerns derailed single-payer proposals in Colorado and Vermont.

Voters need to understand that this cost objection is specious. That’s because, as experience in many countries has demonstrated, the total cost of providing health coverage under the single-payer approach is actually substantially lower than under the current system in the United States. It is a bedrock economic principle that if we can find a way to do something more efficiently, it’s possible for everyone to come out ahead.

By analogy, suppose that your state’s government took over road maintenance from the county governments within it, in the process reducing total maintenance costs by 30 percent. Your state taxes would obviously have to go up under this arrangement.

But if roads would be as well maintained as before, would that be a reason to oppose the move? Clearly not, since the resulting cost savings would reduce your county taxes by more than your state taxes went up. Likewise, it makes no sense to oppose single-payer on the grounds that it would require additional tax revenue. In each case, the resulting gains in efficiency would leave you with greater effective purchasing power than before.

And it saves lives..It is the moral and right thing to do.

/---- Single payer in Britain is pulling the plug on the sick baby rather than let Pres Trump bring him here for treatment. Now if that was your child.......


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Thanks you beat me to it.


.

Because a brain dead baby can have a bright future with the GOP.

Yet 50 million dead baby's aborted that would of voted Democrat..


You dumb fucks have to kill your own and then get the bright idea to import millions of illegals to boost your voting ..

Insane.


.

You don't care about them once they are born. Why care about them BEFORE they are born. That makes no sense.

 

[williepete]

I don't understand how giving the government that much control over your life is the "moral and right" thing to do.

What kind of person puts that kind of faith in government?

Here's the difference.

If I have a single payer system, I don't need to go out and find health insurance. I don't need to worry that the insurance company will decide I don't have the right type of cancer to be insured, I don't have to worry if I was born with a illness that I'll never be able to afford to treat what I was born with.

Essentially who would want to put their trust in insurance companies?

If I have a US system, I have to go out and find health insurance. Do i go for the one I can afford which won't cover most things? Will I pay more than I can realistically afford? What if I lose my job? Suddenly I'm not covered, which means I have to be more of a slave to my job that would otherwise be so.

You can choose to put your faith in people who have been elected to serve, or you can put your faith in insurance companies who are somewhere down the bottom of the pile with lawyers in the trustworthy stakes.

I think we'll end up with single payer. I know you and I aren't going to like it once we get it. The single payer utopia you have in your imagination is not what you and I are going to get. I wish it weren't so.

I think you'll agree with me in about 10 years. Hope we're both still alive to compare notes.

Single payer utopia? I'm very aware of what single payer means, thank you. I've seen it good and I've seen it bad. But at the end of the day, whether good or bad, you're going to get treated. Now, the issue is how do you make sure it stays good? In the UK the problem is that the Tories keep saying it's too expensive. Yeah, it's much cheaper than the US system, and they're complaining it's too expensive. The reality is they want a US system and they know they have to make the NHS non-viable in order to impose a US style system. So, the NHS goes up under Labour and down under the Tories.

In France and places like that they have health insurance run by not for profit companies. The state pays for most of the costs, 70% in the case of France.

I won't agree with you. I've lived under both systems and I know which I prefer.

I appreciate your experience in the matter and your contribution to this discussion. Your experience had been good. Mine bad. You acknowledge there is good and bad parts. I'd like to hear more from you.

From what I've heard of the French system, I admire.

The point is that single payer can be good. But it also needs to be protected. Firstly how much money is going to be spent? The US federal govt spends MORE per capita on healthcare than the British govt spends. Yeah, you got that right, the NHS costs less than the US govt trying to plug the gaps in the US system. How is that possible?

Well it's possible because so many people are on the take. In the NHS it's much, much harder to be on the take. The govt can buy from a position of advantage, not like in the US where pharma companies come along and say "hey, new drug, costs 10 times more than the old one which does the same thing" and they buy the new drug because.... they don't give a damn.

If the UK spend 9 to 9.5% of GDP on the NHS then it would be a really, really good system. As it is the Tories are reducing the amount spent and it's falling apart.

Thanks. Do you know much about the French system? If so, what is your opinion?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Here's the difference.

If I have a single payer system, I don't need to go out and find health insurance. I don't need to worry that the insurance company will decide I don't have the right type of cancer to be insured, I don't have to worry if I was born with a illness that I'll never be able to afford to treat what I was born with.

Essentially who would want to put their trust in insurance companies?

If I have a US system, I have to go out and find health insurance. Do i go for the one I can afford which won't cover most things? Will I pay more than I can realistically afford? What if I lose my job? Suddenly I'm not covered, which means I have to be more of a slave to my job that would otherwise be so.

You can choose to put your faith in people who have been elected to serve, or you can put your faith in insurance companies who are somewhere down the bottom of the pile with lawyers in the trustworthy stakes.

I think we'll end up with single payer. I know you and I aren't going to like it once we get it. The single payer utopia you have in your imagination is not what you and I are going to get. I wish it weren't so.

I think you'll agree with me in about 10 years. Hope we're both still alive to compare notes.

Single payer utopia? I'm very aware of what single payer means, thank you. I've seen it good and I've seen it bad. But at the end of the day, whether good or bad, you're going to get treated. Now, the issue is how do you make sure it stays good? In the UK the problem is that the Tories keep saying it's too expensive. Yeah, it's much cheaper than the US system, and they're complaining it's too expensive. The reality is they want a US system and they know they have to make the NHS non-viable in order to impose a US style system. So, the NHS goes up under Labour and down under the Tories.

In France and places like that they have health insurance run by not for profit companies. The state pays for most of the costs, 70% in the case of France.

I won't agree with you. I've lived under both systems and I know which I prefer.

I appreciate your experience in the matter and your contribution to this discussion. Your experience had been good. Mine bad. You acknowledge there is good and bad parts. I'd like to hear more from you.

From what I've heard of the French system, I admire.

The point is that single payer can be good. But it also needs to be protected. Firstly how much money is going to be spent? The US federal govt spends MORE per capita on healthcare than the British govt spends. Yeah, you got that right, the NHS costs less than the US govt trying to plug the gaps in the US system. How is that possible?

Well it's possible because so many people are on the take. In the NHS it's much, much harder to be on the take. The govt can buy from a position of advantage, not like in the US where pharma companies come along and say "hey, new drug, costs 10 times more than the old one which does the same thing" and they buy the new drug because.... they don't give a damn.

If the UK spend 9 to 9.5% of GDP on the NHS then it would be a really, really good system. As it is the Tories are reducing the amount spent and it's falling apart.

Thanks. Do you know much about the French system? If so, what is your opinion?

I only know about the French system from what I've read, but it seems to work. I'm not sure how it functions.

Expat guide to France: health care

"Access to new drugs is less restricted than in the UK, hospital patients can expect not to succumb to MRSA or other infections. "

"Even international medical insurance companies admit that for expatriates permanently living in France, it makes sense to join the national state health insurance system. Despite the recent limits on self-referral, theCMU scheme (Couverture Maladie Universelle) remains the best option by far."

"
A huge advantage of the scheme is that you are accepted as you are. In insurance jargon, pre-existing medical conditions are disregarded.

No commercial insurer would undertake this liability, even with heavily loaded premiums. The downside, of course, is high running costs, reflecting in high “premiums” or taxes. (The French system eats up 11 per cent of GDP, compared with nine per cent in the UK.)"

11% of GDP is still lower than the US system.

"If you are employed in France, you will be docked an average of around six to seven per cent of your income to pay for health cover. (The tax is levied at eight per cent, but reductions apply for parents and in other circumstances.)"

 

[dblack]

Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money
By ROBERT H. FRANK at the NY Times

Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money

"SNIP............

Sometimes described as Medicare for all, single-payer is a system in which a public agency handles health care financing while the delivery of care remains largely in private hands.

Discussions of the California measure have stalled, however, in the wake of preliminary estimates pegging the cost of the program as greater than the entire state government budget. Similar cost concerns derailed single-payer proposals in Colorado and Vermont.

Voters need to understand that this cost objection is specious. That’s because, as experience in many countries has demonstrated, the total cost of providing health coverage under the single-payer approach is actually substantially lower than under the current system in the United States. It is a bedrock economic principle that if we can find a way to do something more efficiently, it’s possible for everyone to come out ahead.

By analogy, suppose that your state’s government took over road maintenance from the county governments within it, in the process reducing total maintenance costs by 30 percent. Your state taxes would obviously have to go up under this arrangement.

But if roads would be as well maintained as before, would that be a reason to oppose the move? Clearly not, since the resulting cost savings would reduce your county taxes by more than your state taxes went up. Likewise, it makes no sense to oppose single-payer on the grounds that it would require additional tax revenue. In each case, the resulting gains in efficiency would leave you with greater effective purchasing power than before.

And it saves lives..It is the moral and right thing to do.

Soylent Green is people!

 

[Muhammed]

The US could have an excellent universal health care system.

 

[dblack]

Lot's of problems could be solved by an omnipotent state. But I'll pass.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Be careful what you wish for.

I lived under the single payer/single source GOVERNMENT health care in the military. It sucked. Totally incompetent. I lost a significant range of hearing over the years I flew in the AF. It was documented every year by hearing tests. Guess what? On my discharge physical, my hearing was miraculously restored to perfect WITHOUT A HEARING TEST. What happened to the hearing tests in my files showing significant hearing loss? Gone. So much for the integrity of the doctors, nurses and staff when they are unaccountable. So no disability claim.

I could tell you story after story of long waiting lines and misdiagnosed patients that ended up dying. Screwed up prescriptions. Operations that went wrong. And NO ONE HELD ACCOUNTABLE BECAUSE IT'S THE GOVERNMENT. On every base, we had a wood hobby shop and an auto hobby shop. We called going to see the doctor or dentist as going to the medical hobby shop. They practiced on us and didn't give a hoot if they helped us or not.

You want the health care the military gets? You want the health care the VA gets?

You got to be crazy.

I lived under single payer and it was great, I don't go to the hospital much, but I knew people who did.

The problem in the US is that the US govt sucks, and you people don't want to change what sucks to something that would clearly be better, because you want to have this demon to fight against.

/---- If theUS sucks so much why do people risk their lives to get here? Who builds a cardboard raft to sail from Miami to Cuba for the free healthcare?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[frigidweirdo]

Be careful what you wish for.

I lived under the single payer/single source GOVERNMENT health care in the military. It sucked. Totally incompetent. I lost a significant range of hearing over the years I flew in the AF. It was documented every year by hearing tests. Guess what? On my discharge physical, my hearing was miraculously restored to perfect WITHOUT A HEARING TEST. What happened to the hearing tests in my files showing significant hearing loss? Gone. So much for the integrity of the doctors, nurses and staff when they are unaccountable. So no disability claim.

I could tell you story after story of long waiting lines and misdiagnosed patients that ended up dying. Screwed up prescriptions. Operations that went wrong. And NO ONE HELD ACCOUNTABLE BECAUSE IT'S THE GOVERNMENT. On every base, we had a wood hobby shop and an auto hobby shop. We called going to see the doctor or dentist as going to the medical hobby shop. They practiced on us and didn't give a hoot if they helped us or not.

You want the health care the military gets? You want the health care the VA gets?

You got to be crazy.

I lived under single payer and it was great, I don't go to the hospital much, but I knew people who did.

The problem in the US is that the US govt sucks, and you people don't want to change what sucks to something that would clearly be better, because you want to have this demon to fight against.

/---- If theUS sucks so much why do people risk their lives to get here? Who builds a cardboard raft to sail from Miami to Cuba for the free healthcare?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Because you're trying to claim that because there are other countries whose govts suck more than the US's, doesn't mean the US's doesn't suck.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

In 2016 the U.S. spent 17.2% of its GDP on healthcare. The other OECD countries were around 10 to 11%.

Health expenditure and financing

And the state of california can't figure out how to fund it. So, what makes you think the entire country would be able to do it? Face it matthew, there are some things that are unaffordable.

ScienceRocks is a Matthew sok ?

 

[Manonthestreet]

Ari Fleischer‏Verified account @AriFleischer
The front page of today's London Daily Telegraph. Welcome to what single payer is really like.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Be careful what you wish for.

I lived under the single payer/single source GOVERNMENT health care in the military. It sucked. Totally incompetent. I lost a significant range of hearing over the years I flew in the AF. It was documented every year by hearing tests. Guess what? On my discharge physical, my hearing was miraculously restored to perfect WITHOUT A HEARING TEST. What happened to the hearing tests in my files showing significant hearing loss? Gone. So much for the integrity of the doctors, nurses and staff when they are unaccountable. So no disability claim.

I could tell you story after story of long waiting lines and misdiagnosed patients that ended up dying. Screwed up prescriptions. Operations that went wrong. And NO ONE HELD ACCOUNTABLE BECAUSE IT'S THE GOVERNMENT. On every base, we had a wood hobby shop and an auto hobby shop. We called going to see the doctor or dentist as going to the medical hobby shop. They practiced on us and didn't give a hoot if they helped us or not.

You want the health care the military gets? You want the health care the VA gets?

You got to be crazy.

I lived under single payer and it was great, I don't go to the hospital much, but I knew people who did.

The problem in the US is that the US govt sucks, and you people don't want to change what sucks to something that would clearly be better, because you want to have this demon to fight against.

/---- If theUS sucks so much why do people risk their lives to get here? Who builds a cardboard raft to sail from Miami to Cuba for the free healthcare?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Because you're trying to claim that because there are other countries whose govts suck more than the US's, doesn't mean the US's doesn't suck.

/---- Then pick a country that sucks less than the USA and move there and spare us the non stop hate fest. TIA.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In 2016 the U.S. spent 17.2% of its GDP on healthcare. The other OECD countries were around 10 to 11%.

Health expenditure and financing

And the state of california can't figure out how to fund it. So, what makes you think the entire country would be able to do it? Face it matthew, there are some things that are unaffordable.

ScienceRocks is a Matthew sok ?

He changed his name........something to do with his "transition", if you know what I mean.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

In 2016 the U.S. spent 17.2% of its GDP on healthcare. The other OECD countries were around 10 to 11%.

Health expenditure and financing

And the state of california can't figure out how to fund it. So, what makes you think the entire country would be able to do it? Face it matthew, there are some things that are unaffordable.

ScienceRocks is a Matthew sok ?

He changed his name........something to do with his "transition", if you know what I mean.

 

[talksalot]

I don't understand how giving the government that much control over your life is the "moral and right" thing to do.

What kind of person puts that kind of faith in government?

Here's the difference.

If I have a single payer system, I don't need to go out and find health insurance. I don't need to worry that the insurance company will decide I don't have the right type of cancer to be insured, I don't have to worry if I was born with a illness that I'll never be able to afford to treat what I was born with.

Essentially who would want to put their trust in insurance companies?

If I have a US system, I have to go out and find health insurance. Do i go for the one I can afford which won't cover most things? Will I pay more than I can realistically afford? What if I lose my job? Suddenly I'm not covered, which means I have to be more of a slave to my job that would otherwise be so.

You can choose to put your faith in people who have been elected to serve, or you can put your faith in insurance companies who are somewhere down the bottom of the pile with lawyers in the trustworthy stakes.

The people in our government have proven themselves to be corrupt and self-serving.
Insurance is a product. If that product fails to deliver you cancel it and buy a new product. Is it very hard to do.....? it is! But it's easier than firing a corrupt, lazy, incompetent government employee....that task is impossible.
If you think government-run insurance is great, just ask the people on Medicaid, the patients at the V.A. hospitals or our military families. Democrats plan to put everyone on Medicaid and all but the 1% will be dependent on government for medical care. I find that scary.