Have you taken a look at a public health insurance exchange recently? Buying your own health insurance is a terrible deal. I'm self-employed so have had to deal with this myself. Nothing solidifies deep disdain for any politician who doesn't support Medicare for All faster than looking at that webpage of health insurance plans.
There are a lot of reasons health insurance is way too expensive, but one of them is that many individuals are shielded from the true price because it's provided through their employer. This essentially removes downward price pressure from individuals.
Having insurance tied to employment is bad for workers. It makes switching jobs far more difficult and stressful, and makes losing your job that much more of an issue.
Yes, I agree having insurance tied to employment is bad for workers. The conclusion is "therefore M4A", not "therefore everyone should buy their own insurance on a public exchange, paying half as much as their rent". You can use COBRA to stay on your job's health insurance when you leave it, which is not notably more expensive than the public exchange plans.
The insurance market model for healthcare coverage is such a fractally broken failure that if you're still stuck on the stage of twisting some knobs and adjusting some levers in the hope that second-order market effects will improve things then there really is just nothing that will convince you to move on.
Normally people create downward pressure on prices by not buying the product when it becomes overpriced. However with healthcare there is a captive market. Are you not going to get a cast put on a broken leg because the doctor wants to charge too much? Are you going to just opt out of cancer treatments and die?
Healthcare is an area where market forces are inherently perverted because people often don't have a choice of not buying the service. This is why every sensible country uses a socialized system instead. Not only does it provide better service, but without the perverse market incentives and multiple layers of middlemen infesting the system it is much less expensive.
That would be true iff prices were disclosed upfront and the pricing model was clear. I had a hospital experience recently where the surgeon provided one bill, the hospital a second, and the anesthesiologist a third.
Only the surgeon's pricing was available ahead of time. The hospital provided an invoice at the time of surgery, marked as "SUBJECT TO CHANGE". The anesthesiologist himself didn't know how much his services would cost.
Three weeks later, we're still watching invoices and insurance claims roll in.
Medical tourism is a direct testament to inflated charges as a systematic problem. Finding a hospital with non-inflated costs requires crossing international borders.
The real problem is that health insurance is overly expensive - mainly thanks to the relationship between gov / insurance. You should fix that; thinking that nationalising health care will fix the problem is just some politician's dream.
The extra money needed for nationalised health care will have to come from somewhere - and because poor people don't have money and rich people are too good at eluding their tax obligations, the usual middle class will pay for it.
I'd rather have a fully private market without national entities messing with the prices and charities for those who can't afford it.
Of course, no politician will ever champion such a system, because it removes the gov from the equation, making them less powerful and needed by the masses that keep paying taxes.
I'm sorry but this is just a complete fantasy. The "extra money" for nationalized healthcare can come from taxes instead of premiums, and enormous efficiency gains with the elimination of N x N redundant billing departments & business units. It has worked all over the world. Your scheme has not, and is also immensely cruel to people who can't afford health insurance. Charity has never solved a social problem.
