The problem with every healthcare approach in the US and Europe is it accepts the high costs of services to a degree, and attempts to either indirectly control costs (via incentives or penalties) and spread costs (which is the biggest purpose of Obamacare).
That is a nonsense approach only built on the faulty foundation that the market for healthcare is like the market for televisions. It's empircally untrue. In fact, it is dishonest to say that every or even most markets behave like each other: the ability for free market competition to inherently control costs has been shown not to work in other markets aside from healthcare such as defense, space launches and higher education. In every case, becoming locked in long term relationships - not even just a singular contract but an ongoing business relationship - has retarded the ability for competition to surpress costs to the point where costs are not surpressed.
One of the things that bothers me most about modern American political discourse is that we pretend that we're the first ones ever coming across this (and other) problems and we're engaging in pioneering problem solving. It's like we live in a vacuum where the American experience of a problem is the only experience that matters. That's crap. It gets us into mess after mess.
Japan is by far the best example of how to fix a health care system. They have one of the best and least expensive in the world. They also have a problem that we have been thankfully spared: they're becoming a nation of the elderly to a degree far beyond what is happening to an Aging America. Their elderly, like everywhere else are demanding more retirement and medical services. But they are keeping it inexpensive and affordable to their far smaller base of younger taxpayers. So how is it then that they have a bigger problem but already found a solution?
Because Japan, one of the world's paragons of capitalism, had the intellectual honestly to realize Health Care is not a market like any other, and that the delusion of shopping around for providers and services like you're shopping around for television had no factual basis in reality for being effective. What they did was brilliant. They got insurance providers and health care providers in a room and sadi, in so many words, "you're going to agree to a low, but reasonable price... and if we don't like it, we're going to set the price for you".
As a result Japan is the land of the $70 MRI and some of the lowest cost services in the developed world.
If this sounds like price controls and the government controlling a market, that's because it exactly is that. Japan, one of the most successful capitalist countries in the world, decided that health care was different and treated it as such.
The US could easily do this and solve it's health care issue. It would have to make two intellectual compromises: first that the health care industry is a very low profitability industry - that health care providers and insurance companies do not exist to make a lot of money, but rather to provide a service. And secondly, we would have to make the compromise of openingly engaging in a price control. The truth of the matter is, in the US, through subsidies and outright legislation, lots of goods people use every day, especially food staples, are limited by strict price controls that keep things like milk affordable. But Americans like to pretend these don't exist because it makes every argument about free markets easier.
When it comes down to it, Japan is just a more serious country than we are. They had a problem, identified a pragmatic solution, and jettisoned principle, to great effect. In America, we embrace principle and accept the $2000 MRI, hoping vainly that spreading costs will surpress prices going forward. If it sounds like a bullshit strategy, that is because it is.
Diagnostics should be dirt cheap. Routine procedures (like mending the most common reasons for emergency room visits) should be cheap. More involved procedures should be expensive but affordable. But the root of the problem is the COSTS and how they are decided in the first place, which isn't effected by market forces at all.
To this, I point to a kind of amazing question: how much is a bottle of water? About $1.75 right? So you would think that a bag of Saline at the hospital should cost about $4.00 to $5.00 when you consider it's just salt water (entirely drinkable), with a bag instead of a bottle, and a disposable needle. You would think that, but you would be wrong. It's actually about $400. Yes. $400 dollars. Costs the French $4.73, but America, it's vastly more for overhead costs factored in.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/27/he...anted=all&_r=0
And this is the source of every bullshit health care problem this county faces. Because instead of dealing with, head on, how $400 for a liter of salt water is allowed to happen, we focus on trying to bring that down via market competition or spreading costs or some nonsense like this. The fact is, you're being gouged in a cornered market.
Any health care reform that doesn't directly cut costs of routine procedures by a hundredfold, instantly, isn't serious health care reform worth talking about.