There’s a reason hospitals get bigger and bigger. Economics drive scale and communities that cannot drive scale will fall behind regardless what the government does.
This is a product of healthcare being treated as a for-profit endeavour. Small healthcare facilities shouldn’t need to be profitable (neither should large ones, but as you highlight, economics of scale means that larger facilities do better financially).
The government does have the power to change this, but it would require recalibrating to recognise healthcare as a basic human right
And that is precisely why we have a government that provides essential services. We don’t want a government that runs like a business that runs like what you just talked about.
This is incredibly obvious if you ask what the most efficient government setup would be. Quite clearly, the most efficient setup is to not exist at all, because then there’s no overhead. And of course you provide no services but it comes at no expense… That’s what you were driving at, but I think almost no voters in the US actually agree with your stance. But they might describe things just like you did perhaps unaware that they are fooling themselves or others or both.
If healthcare was government run in the US, I imagine that it would be a lot like the public education system. Those who live in wealthier neighborhoods have great facilities and great doctors. Those who live in poorer neighborhoods and neighborhoods with higher crime would have lower quality facilities. Do you think we would finance it like we do public education? Do you think we would gatekeep access like we do public education?
There’s a reason hospitals get bigger and bigger. Economics drive scale and communities that cannot drive scale will fall behind regardless what the government does.
This is a product of healthcare being treated as a for-profit endeavour. Small healthcare facilities shouldn’t need to be profitable (neither should large ones, but as you highlight, economics of scale means that larger facilities do better financially).
The government does have the power to change this, but it would require recalibrating to recognise healthcare as a basic human right
Every rural community is a temporarily embarassed metropolis.
No, it’s these equity firms buying up hospitals, giving loans to themselves, and then bankrupting them.
Which ones that were bought by private equity ended-up going bankrupt? Do you have specific examples?
And that is precisely why we have a government that provides essential services. We don’t want a government that runs like a business that runs like what you just talked about.
This is incredibly obvious if you ask what the most efficient government setup would be. Quite clearly, the most efficient setup is to not exist at all, because then there’s no overhead. And of course you provide no services but it comes at no expense… That’s what you were driving at, but I think almost no voters in the US actually agree with your stance. But they might describe things just like you did perhaps unaware that they are fooling themselves or others or both.
If healthcare was government run in the US, I imagine that it would be a lot like the public education system. Those who live in wealthier neighborhoods have great facilities and great doctors. Those who live in poorer neighborhoods and neighborhoods with higher crime would have lower quality facilities. Do you think we would finance it like we do public education? Do you think we would gatekeep access like we do public education?