In a privatized system, the people who benefit most are the hospital owners, doctors, and insurance companies. Healthcare is a product that everyone is going to consume at one point or another, thus the people -must- buy it or suffer with their ailments. You might argue that competition will drive down prices, but it's such a specialized field that requires enormously expensive assets (doctor's education, the facilities and equipment) that the price will be much higher than the average person can afford, which is why health insurance is such a huge thing to have. However, these insurance companies know that, and charge you up the wall for it, because your other option is paying for it entirely yourself and then you're screwed.
If prices are kept artificially slow, everyone who works in the medical field makes less. If they make less, they're less likely to be available. If the government pays for these people to go to college or helps them with their paychecks, then you take money from the people or you create inflation.
Problem not solved.
Furthermore, competition can exist in he medical field. Prices might remain higher than you would want them to be, but they would be affordable, unless we're talking about medical treatments that are costly due to limited supply (in which case you run out - problem not solved).
Do you know why medical prices are so high? Third party payers.
When an insurance company says, "we'll cover the costs", then you're not going to think twice about pricing when you go to the doctor to have an operation performed. You're going to get whatever is most convenient, or whatever is best quality - even if you don't need either one.
Imagine if car insurance companies offered to pay for people's gasoline. Nobody would fill their car half way up as a means of saving money, they would all fill their cars up completely. People aren't going to start driving less or more conservatively, they're going to waste gas. Why? Because their insurance companies are paying for the gas! But because we have to pay for gasoline ourselves, we are more conservative with what we do.
Guess what, this keeps gas prices cheaper than they would be otherwise.
The same would be true if we didn't have reckless insurance companies. It would be alright if insurance companies only offered to pay for specific ailments rather than every small and cheap medical expense under the sun. Why go for cheaper contraceptives if your insurance company is willing to dish out hundred dollar operations? Now people have to pay more money to insurance companies to compensate, plus there's less supply for higher cost contraceptives - which makes THOSE prices go up!
The problem with insurance companies is that people don't really care about who their health care provider is. Most people obtain their insurance through where they work. Because of this, people don't shop around for insurance that fits them. They don't worry about saving money, because they're employers are paying.
I would say that everyone has the right to be treated, for whatever their illness is.
Provided healthcare is not a right, it's an entitlement.
I disagree. I believe everyone should, ultimately, be responsible for their own bodies. The idea of me deserving other people's property because my body might have cancer or some other ailment is an idea I will never hold - because I am no man's master. If I have cancer, I'm responsible. People can help me, and I'll accept it, but it's wrong for me to expect others to give their money to me against their own will. I'd rather be dead than hold such mentality. I'm not saying people should be forced to think in such a way, but I do believe we should enforce property rights and treat the human body as one's own property - that is to say, you're responsible for what happens to it even if it's beyond you control.
In a capitalistic system, the middle/lower class.
These people are hurt the most, but they aren't hurt very bad. In a capitalist system, one that's not corrupt with 3rd party providers, prices go down and treatment becomes more affordable for everyone.
In a socialist system, only those who are not wealthy enough to go to a private system but wealthy enough that they could have afforded better care in a non-socialized system. However, that only applies if the socialized system cannot treat them adequately for some reason.
Which, I have heard, is often the case.
Another issue is that these people also don't have to pay for their own maintenance. therefore the tax payers have to pay for them. Economically, everyone pays more. Since socialized care is 3rd party and doesn't allow for competition, everyone pays EVEN MORE. And since the only thing preventing prices from rising are price controls, inflation increases EVEN MORE. The fact private health care systems are less able to compete, they suffer even more. They also have to compete with a government that's allowed to go into debt.
The money is getting paid one way or another.
In a capitalist system, people have to pay for themselves or obtain health insurance that fits their needs.
In a socialist system, everyone pays for each other.
To simplify the system to "the money has to come from somewhere, let's pick the one in which everyone is treated", ignores the fact that people are held accountable for the actions of others rather than themselves. It also ignores price incentives.
Overall expenditures mean that the rich pay more, while the lower/middle class pays less.
The rich might pay more than the middle or lower class, but the middle or lower class are still forced to pay an incredibly redicilous amount in taxes. There's this idea that "as long as the rich pays more, who cares?" But, I disagree with this mentality. The rich paying more doesn't mean the middle class or poor are paying any less.
When you get a job where your income is low and you pay for everything yourself (from housing to school), you'll learn that taxation is not the solution, since you're either forced to pay for people you don't care for (and shouldn't be forced to care for), or you have to become dependent on the state and get financial help.
We should find solutions in which people try to avoid becoming dependent on the state, but we're constantly seeking ways in which it's easier to do.
"I seriously doubt supply would be a problem. There -might- be a slightly longer waiting period because, as you mentioned, people will go for less dire reasons, but overall I'd imagine there's little to no difference in average wait time. Hell, even in privatized care, you have to wait. The whole argument that socialized care will take longer and thus have people die from waiting is an exaggeration and ignoring that the exact same thing can happen in the system we have in the USA."
Death from waiting? Probably not. However, people shouldn't have to let their wounds fester or their ailments get worse because doctors are swamped working on people who don't consider the seriousness (or lack of seriousness) of their wounds.
To add to this with socialized health care you at least eliminate the situation of simply not receiving care at all due to lack of funds for it.
People aren't denied treatment in privatized hospitals. They might have to settle for less expensive treatments, but the treatments get the job done. And whatever bill exists doesn't have to be paid all at once. Some medical bills can be incredibly high for incredibly severe illnesses. These are uncommon. That's not to say there wouldn't be problems, but I'd rather seek solutions through innovation - finding better marketing methods and investing in better technology. Depending on the state only hampers healthcare advancement.
I don't really see why a combination of the two couldn't be possible.
Privatization is only efficient when their competition have to abide by the same rules. Two private businesses that compete will have to find new ways to save money and provide better care. Efficiency is key.
When you have a private business and a government business, the government funded business is allowed to go into debt, which makes them far less efficient. Not only do tax payers pay more, but the private business, which may have been more efficient, will likely go under due to the fact that they can't compete with an entity that doesn't have to stay out of debt or an entity that makes it money through taxes whereas the private entity must rely on being self efficient.
