I'm guessing you meant to reply to
@the cac mamba but sure, I'll explain in an over simplified way.
Imagine healthcare as a barbell - in the middle you have routine health problems. Then there are the extremes: on one end you have preventative care(A) and on the other you have life threatening medical emergencies like cancer or surgery (B).
A tends to be cheap and where some arguments are. Should insurance be charging you for something like a tooth cleaning when there are tons of dentists and hygienists that can do it for $100?
Then there is B, where you need lifesaving surgery for $1,000,000. This is where insurance is supposed to really help you so you don't ever foot the bill.
And in the middle we have routine health problems that you should be able to go to a primary care physician or any regular doctor for help. Costs vary.
Scenario: You only have a limited number of medical professionals. Constrained by the sheer amount of time it takes to become a doctor, the AMA lobbyists, and the costs. There is much more demand than supply. You also have the country with the most open immigration policy in the world.
Question: How do you dole out enough medical services to everyone while keeping the costs low? Do you cut doctor's salaries (never happening), increase the amount of doctors (AMA won't allow this), shorten the time it takes to finish college + med school + rotation + specialty? (possible with AI but not even close yet). If you're following this was purely a rhetorical question because no one has been able to find any answers.
Unlike every other "developed" nation, most US politicians actually don't lie to their people about what happens if you want Universal Health Care - costs will go up. Always happens with subsidized goods; see: College tuition. So, you have to tax your citizens to cover the costs.
And you still haven't solved the supply problem. So great, now you're trying to apply a universal system that covers
everything for most citizens while you don't have enough medical professionals. The result is long wait times for things in the "middle" section and the B tier. Sure, it's easy to go get something routine checked out for cheap pending doctor availability. If not? Wait 18 months. You've got cancer? Good luck getting a biopsy if the system is jammed. This is why private health insurance is needed along with a national safety net if you want to go that route.
Not one country on Earth with UHC can beat the USA in quality
and quantity of people served just for the sheer fact that money buys the best services available and surprise surprise - the USA is the best country for most medical services. I haven't even touched on the pharma side and physician costs in all of this. There is also the drug pricing side of this which as I alluded to before, US companies spend billions in R&D and charge Americans much more while negotiating cheaper prices with other countries. If this stopped, health care costs in other developed nations would explode.
You can't have a system that serves everyone for every ailment at a low cost while keeping service levels up. Or at least not until we have full-fledged robot AIs.
There are no pure solutions, only trade-offs. UHC is great when you want to keep low, simple, quick medical problems from destroying your population. Once expensive issues that take lots of time, specialties, and medical professionals come into play you're just playing roulette on a waiting list. The US system has a ton of problems but as of now your best bet is private health insurance if you have a serious ailment or vulnerable lifestyle. If someone said it will cost $1,000,000 to save your life, you'd pay it in a heartbeat even if you went broke. You at least have the option. People in other countries don't always get to choose.
I'm not a single-issue voter but Medicare for All is my "Ok, you've got my vote."
