> Which, as far as I can tell, results in longer wait times for various procedures and fewer people receiving them.
Even in EU or in places with socialized medicine, you can decide to go to a private clinic. It's costly, but it's not like all doctors become state doctors or something. And from what I've read, whatever medicine they prescribe (assuming its regulated) will be lower costing, because the state bartered down the prices (procedures still cost a bundle).
> Why not? Because there was nothing in the system forcing them to actually take into account what it would cost to get a heart in seven days if it came to that.
Well, for once I'm not sure if there are definitive proof that sugar/salt/fat causes special problems and what interplay of them causes you to have heart/liver etc. problems.
However, we have all seen how states deal with something that causes great health cost like smoking -tax them and tax them good. I'm pretty sure that in Australia they managed to obliterate smoking, by replacing all brands with brownish packs with pictures of diseased lungs.
Another way could be subsidy for vegetables and other 'healthy' treats (salmon, tuna). But I don't see this being done by a non-state actor or a group. A state that has socialized medicine has most incentive to promote these programs, and a state only has enough means to put it into action.
> Even in EU or in places with socialized medicine, you can decide to go to a private clinic.
Sure, if you can afford it. But I thought the whole point of socialized medicine was to get people the health care they need regardless of whether they can afford it.
Listen, you can choose one of two options: a 'free' one you pay through your taxes or a private one you fund mostly on your dime. That said government doesn't prevent these things from happening. If you hate waiting and love to be pampered go for this option.
As for the longer wait times, sure, that happens. In fact it's supposed to happen, since MORE people can afford it (there is some abuse but I'd say it's minor).
If the price of waiting in line was $1000000 there would be no waiting in line, so I don't see much to your point. Low prices = more demand.
But low prices = less supply. And prices that the people actually getting the health care can't see = even more mismatch between demand and supply.
It's not just that people want more health care if the prices are lower; they want more health care that they shouldn't be getting, because they're not balancing the benefit to them against the actual cost; they're only balancing the benefit to them against the cost that they see. If they saw the full cost, they would not demand as much because they would realize that the resources they are demanding are not cheap.
In other words, the artificially low price of health care makes people think it's more abundant than it actually is, so they use up resources for minor problems that are then not available to address major ones; so many people are going to the doctor for colds and hangnails that people with serious illnesses aren't getting the care they need. The longer wait times are a symptom of that.
Also, since the prices are artificially controlled, there's less incentive for people to become doctors, nurses, and other health care workers; so there are fewer of them to go around, but more demand. Which further exacerbates the above problems. The longer wait times are a symptom of that too.
Even in EU or in places with socialized medicine, you can decide to go to a private clinic. It's costly, but it's not like all doctors become state doctors or something. And from what I've read, whatever medicine they prescribe (assuming its regulated) will be lower costing, because the state bartered down the prices (procedures still cost a bundle).
> Why not? Because there was nothing in the system forcing them to actually take into account what it would cost to get a heart in seven days if it came to that.
Well, for once I'm not sure if there are definitive proof that sugar/salt/fat causes special problems and what interplay of them causes you to have heart/liver etc. problems.
However, we have all seen how states deal with something that causes great health cost like smoking -tax them and tax them good. I'm pretty sure that in Australia they managed to obliterate smoking, by replacing all brands with brownish packs with pictures of diseased lungs.
Another way could be subsidy for vegetables and other 'healthy' treats (salmon, tuna). But I don't see this being done by a non-state actor or a group. A state that has socialized medicine has most incentive to promote these programs, and a state only has enough means to put it into action.