OK, and....?
Since I have the advantage of being at a computer
here's a graph for you to check out. Switching to costs per capita still doesn't make the US look very good.
So what you're saying is:
The US spends more, and covers fewer people, than nations with single payer / universal health care. Thanks for helping me make my point. :thumbs:
Did you not read what I wrote?
Health care is not a commodity like food or cars or houses.
If you have a heart attack, you can't spend 30 minutes shopping around for the hospital with the cheapest emergency room. You will not do well if you tell the EMTs to take you to a hospital an extra 20 minutes away, because they charge less for X-rays. You can't get an angiogram in one hospital, then get transported to another to have a stent put in.
To expand on that: In the private insurance system, it's nearly impossible to figure out your costs. Sure, you can call a few MRI facilities -- if there is more than one in your area that takes your insurance, of course -- and hear different prices. But your insurer is paying part of the bill, and that can vary based on which facility you use.
Further: Sometimes you can choose, sometimes you can't. If you have a heart condition, you have the choice of a few medicines, and some may be generic. If you need chemotherapy, you can't pick and choose.
Or: Are you going to decline to get chemo, because surgery is cheaper?
Or: Am I going to use a worse doctor, because he's cheaper?