Something must be down to contain the costs - otherwise they will eventually bankrupt the country or at the very least the average guy won't be able to afford health care insurance. The "something" doesn't necessarily have to be a public sector initiative. My guess is that the solution will be primarily a market solution with some public sector tinkering at the margins. Yes, demand does drive the cost, but so does corruption, the overuse of technology, excessive lawsuits, antiquated and overstaffed billing practices, slothful, unhealthy lifestyles, and the cost of covering the uninsured.
You're right - I do mean the number of Americans without healthcare insurance. There are myriad reasons why Americans don't have healthcare insurance, and putting it down to a lack of responsibility is too reductionist.
I read somewhere that since 2000, the number of uninsured Americans has grown by about five million, so the 43 millions might be a conservative figure. You're right - they usually do end up getting care. But the taxpayer ends up footing the medical bill for the uninsured in one way or another, so that's one reason to be concerned about the fact that there are millions of these people. It is cheaper to intervene early than it is to let things go to the point that these people end up in emergency rooms at vast expense.
I don't think the crisis is fictional. The system needs overhauling. The question is, are the reforms going to market driven or state-centered?
It's the "tinkering" that worries me. Never has the government been content to just tinker. Sooner or later, it forces its way in and takes over everything, to the detriment of all involved.
Yes, demand does drive the cost, but so does corruption, the overuse of technology, excessive lawsuits, antiquated and overstaffed billing practices, slothful, unhealthy lifestyles, and the cost of covering the uninsured.
Corruption? Where? And surely you don't think corruption of all things is going to be REDUCED if the government gets involved??!! Overuse of technology? That does seem to be a problem, one that is being addressed by the HMO model. Antiquated billing? I can't say I know much about that, but it seems to me that modern computerized recordkeeping would invalidate much of that.
As to lifestyles, unless the government regulates everyone's behavior, certain lifestyles are going to be riskier than others. One of the purposes of insurance is to collectivize the risk. It seems to do that well.
And the cost of insuring the uninsured will be borne either in the private or the public sector, the only difference being that a public-sector "solution" will also fund innumerable parasites and fellow travelers.
Health care is best left to the free market, imaginary "crisis" or not.