How about we set up public labs and testing facilities? They could be like a library. People don't know where to even start to find out what is actually wrong with them.
Seems like doctors just Google it these days.
Sure, there are a lot of things we could do to help people get healthy and stay healthy, some being more efficient than others. Having a good entry point for figuring out how to proceed if you don't have a general practitioner, as you suggest, seems like a reasonable idea. In the end, though, it comes down to how it gets paid for.
Personally, I think single-payer is the best compromise of socialism and capitalism. You don't nationalize the health care sector (like the NHS in the UK, if I understand their system correctly)--you still have a completely private industry health care sector. The government takes the place of the health insurance companies. There's a lot of efficiency to be reaped--the government doesn't need to turn a profit, like every health insurance company does. The government doesn't need to spend a ton on advertising. Every dollar of funding can be a dollar spent on covering people's health costs, whereas every dollar spent on insurance premiums isn't spent on covering health costs (and, as a for-profit entity, an insurance company has much more incentive to look for reasons to deny claims).
Right now, we have a very awkward and corrupted form of single-payer--the health insurance companies still remain to pay for coverage, and the government pays
them to insure people with pre-existing conditions at reasonable rates. It creates unnecessary layers because it was a compromise solution. I don't foresee single-payer coming into existence any time soon, like within the next 5-10 years, but I could see a public option being the next step.
I definitely don't expect everyone, especially people on the more conservative side of things, to agree with me on single-payer, but a lot of it comes down to a world view: do you consider health care to be something that everyone should have reasonable access to, regardless of their economic situation? If you don't, then all of this will be anathema to you because this is, at base, a wealth redistribution system--the richer will carry a heavier burden to help fund the coverage for poorer people. There's no such thing as "free" anything and I don't deny that a progressive tax (higher the wealthier you are) will be required. Since I
do believe that medically necessary care should be available regardless of economic situation, I'm in favor of it.
It should be noted that Ronald Reagan is actually the one who signed the law that began moving the Overton window on this, when he signed off on legislation that no one could be turned away from emergency rooms or denied emergency service (like via paramedics and ambulances) for lack of ability to pay. It was a good and compassionate move, but I think we should consider pushing that further. Preventative care can keep people from getting sick in the first place, and preventative care costs less than treating illness. Long-term care for things like cancer can't be handled in the ER and the chemo and radiation can cost tens of thousands of dollars.
