Universal healthcare without private insurance is a loser. Democrats pushing for it should get off that boat. Private healthcare should be seen as a life-jacket, as cost to society without a private mix would make for very rough seas.
""WE'VE DONE A LOT MORE THAN YOU WOULD THINK": HOW THE HEALTH-INSURANCE INDUSTRY IS WORKING TO PULL DEMOCRATS AWAY FROM MEDICARE-FOR-ALL"
Private health insurance exists in Europe and Canada. Here’s how it works.
The debate over eliminating health insurance is actually offering a false choice.
By Sarah Kliff sarah@vox.com Feb 12, 2019, 7:30am EST
[...]
Here’s the thing: None of our peer countries have built a health care system like this. Canada, France, England, Australia, and the Netherlands all run health care systems that have gaps in coverage.
Not one of our peer countries has found a way to provide health care that covers all benefits at no cost to patients — the price is just prohibitive. Instead, most provide free or low-cost access to core medical services while asking patients to kick in something for the parts the government can’t afford.
When you look at America’s peers, the key question doesn’t seem to be whether there will be private health insurance. Instead, the key question seems to be what role private health insurance will play. The answer to that question can often reflect a health system’s core values.
A platform of eliminating all private health insurance would act as an anchor in any election campaign. If it were feasible Britain and Australia would have accomplished it. At least that's the situation to date.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
