Originally Posted by
3point14
Is it a uniquely US thing to talk of provision of health insurance like that's the point and not simply a tool to achieve healthcare?
I think it is, more or less. There's a historical evolution in there that makes it a different discussion. At a minimum (setting aside all the various small influences that come in to play), Other countries decided that health care should be a social program a long time ago - long before insurance gained solid footing. It didn't get roots in, it didn't grow as a large industry, and it didn't employ hundreds of thousands of people. In the US, we missed that memo. If we'd been paying attention back in the 40s, or heck even the 60s, we wouldn't be in this boat today. We would have been ahead of the majority of technological improvements that have skyrocketed the underlying cost of care. We would have been ahead of the drug innovations that have compounded that cost. And we would have been ahead of comprehensive medical coverage (including routine maintenance and actual insurable events) becoming de rigeur as an employment benefit.
No we have to figure out a way to unravel that knot that doesn't crash the whole thing.