However an organised national healthcare system can plan and allocate resources as needed, whereas private health systems consisting of competing insurance companies and private providers have no system of nationwide coordination, mainly as they are designed for profit, not people.
If you are told to stay at home for 14 days, and you can't pay your rent or buy food, would you?
Would you bankrupt yourself paying for private care?
@wyliecoyoteuk I agree?
I am in wide agreement with your post.
I was replying to the comment by @boilingsteam
@wyliecoyoteuk yup. I figured.
I was reading a study comparing European countries' health care. The UK NHS was rated in the middle, not great, not terrible. The ones rated the best were not centrally planned, but all were paid for out of taxes in some way.
It seemed that having independent providers competing produced a higher level of health care than the single state run ones.
All of those systems had some form of tax payer paid reimbursement of bills produced by the health care providers.
(I don't have a link to the study, and it was a while ago that I read it)
In times of emergency, clearly a centrally organised system could work better, but if it works badly the whole system will be bad. A group of independent providers is less organised, but doesn't suffer from the possibility of being 100% bad.
In emergencies someone has to pull people together, and that is probably the government, but I doubt that the politburo is the best group to be in control all year round.
General purpose mastodon instance