Coriolis said:
Just what is that "everything else"?
"Everything else" means services and products not subsidized (or not heavily subsidized) or run by the government. It would include most technology such as cars, computers, private educational institutions, and medical services like Lasik eye surgery and cosmetic surgery procedures. The cost curve inevitable spikes up when the government gets involved because businesses know they'll be able to charge much, much more for services than if the government were not involved.
You'll also get a lower quality product because competition is eliminated. There is no competition between one V.A. hospital and another, so where's the incentive for excellence? You'll also get longer waiting times because more people will visit doctors even if they don't need to because the service is "free". If they had to pay out of pocket, they probably won't visit the doctor for a cold or other low-level illness.
Your "concierge health plan" is similar to what we had generations ago: if you can pay directly for medical care, you get it. If you can't, you don't, unless some doctor is going to provide it as a charity. What you describe is nice in theory. In practice, it actually exacerbates the gulf between haves and have-nots, with the difference made up haphazardly by charity, which happens only to the degree that people are motivated by something other than profit.
Concierge plans are still around and consumers pay much less because the services are transparent and coctors don't have to do as much paperwork. You know what each service or product costs. This may shock you but the number 1 reason why people become doctors is the money. The profit motive is not something that's harmful; it's what motivates people to do better. You get better service from the waiter/waitress because of tips. What's wrong with that?
The "gulf between the haves and the have-nots" is also something that's perfectly healthy in a free society. Some people choose to pursue money and some don't. Some people choose to live out on the streets and some decide they want to start a business. People are happy when they have choices and a feeling of control in their lives. In primitive and totalitarian societies, there is equality but everyone is miserable as in North Korea and Venezuela because they don't have control over their lives. Income inequality just means people have opportunities to use their talents to make money.
If you are talented, you're not going to excel in places like Denmark or Norway because there are no opportunities. Here, if you have talent, the odds are great that you will succeed and be rewarded for your talents. I think that helping people fulfill their full potential is preferable to "equality".
