[ethn]

Sure however the vast majority of costs come from the government regulation in the first place. Consumers of course bear the cost, however this doesn't necessarily mean we should remove these expensive regulations, one can argue they are beneficial.

If we assume they are beneficial, this also doesn't mean the government should subsidize it less but instead more to continue to allow the production of drugs. If we artificially require a price, many of these drugs would simply not be developed.

I'm under the persuasion that the future of healthcare is a voucher system to allow the competitive bidding of drugs/insurance to remain as well as the maintenance of the quality and quantity of medical research. Many countries purport to have better medical systems however we find that the American payers subsidize the rest of the world––with the USA producing more medical research than the rest of the world combined.

In a single healthcare system, the prices of drugs deemed essential will skyrocket while others will simply be excluded by the bureau. This then creates a cost on the tax payers through the inflation/excess tax required by the national budget to afford it. While at the same time the single healthcare system has little incentive to improve its efficiency of administration until it's fully deteriorated and governmental intervention promises a revamp which may still be ineffective.

The voucher system allows many insurance companies to exist, allowing the quality of insurance provided treatments to remain through that competition on their varied administrative strategies. While at the same time consumers with varying degrees of medicinal concerns can choose the right programme for themselves––opting to even pay beyond the sum provided by the voucher. This way it's no longer only affordable through a corporate benefit and the buyer group is available instead through a national benefit.