I'd just say that if "too many options" is a problem* then there is automatically a market opportunity for reducing the number of options. Indeed, pretty much every shopkeeper does this as a matter of course. They restrict the number of products available to ones that they think match the range of needs/wants of their consumer base. Add in the fact that there are multiple shopkeepers within each market segment and competition serves to select the shopkeepers that do the best of job reducing the number of options. *which evidence suggests that at times there may be - but often it depends on how you analyse the evidence.
I don't agree with the premise that people (patients) know or understand their medical needs, or that their circumstances or desires necessarily play an important part in their treatment. That's what doctors are for. Private providers trying to sell health care packages tailored to your personal circumstances are essentially trying to outperform the "market" in sick people. Given enough people, it's not that difficult to figure out how many people are going to need treatment for any particular condition, so having private providers cherry-pick the healthy ones means all the difficult, complicated cases get either left in a state run safety net system (which taxpayers pick up the tab for) or outside of any kind of system (which means they suffer and die). Look, if someone wants to pay extra for seeing a GP who's receptionist has a nice smile and a low-cut top, or stay in a hospital where the food is made by an in-house Michelin starred restaurant, fine. Individuals who whine that they can't afford those things if they also have to pay for an actual medical system that heals the sick isn't, in my view, a legitimate complaint. If you're healthy and not a doctor, you probably don't know what kind of medical services you might need (and if you're not a lawyer, you probably won't understand a private insurer's policy terms and conditions either). If you're sick, you probably don't care what the treatment is so long as it works and you get better again. So how is any individual ever in the position to make an informed choice in choosing which health care plan to pay for?
The dreaded asymmetric information problem. Have a read of the start of the thread which showed real-world tangible solutions to this very problem before socialised socialist medicine existed. In particular, take note of the 3rd group of service providers which encompasses a wide variety of contract practices.
I did read about them (with interest), but I don't see how they could be considered as much more than a step towards a universal socialized healthcare system. Really, why would people organize and join friendly societies if they didn't benefit from paying a small, regular fee and spreading the risk of medical expenses over a whole bunch of other people? Scale that up to a national level and you essentially get a universal system. Okay, it would have been too difficult to do that in the 19th century because administering a national scheme with the technology of the day would have made it impossible, but we have the technology to be able to do it now.
By nationalised I asume you mean monopolised by government. Why would people join a friendly society? Because monopolies, especially government mandated or protected ones are notoriously inefficient and less effective than competitive privateers.
Right, you mean like how the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs has a monopoly on the Veterans Healthcare Administration that's consistently found to be more cost effective and have better quality of care than private sector equivalents?
I didn't know about VA's cost effectiveness and quality of care, so i googled it. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...terans-choice-program/?utm_term=.6e9ee9a7a464 http://nypost.com/2014/05/16/top-veterans-official-resigns-amid-healthcare-scandal/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...causing-more-problems/?utm_term=.9eeff4542a79 https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...f5479e6bbdd_story.html?utm_term=.4c430d89cca9 Yep, that monopoly.
Attended a lender's presentation in Sydney yesterday and during the Q&A someone (not me) said "vicissitudes". It's mainstream.