On the contrary, there is, the problem (for some) is that it is indeed a bullet and the people getting (figuratively) shot are the ones who, under this system, are getting very fat on the inefficiencies. They're able to use their illicit wealth to exploit our very broken system of government to maintain their rent-seeking successes.
No system is perfect. If the US had a universal healthcare system, it would suck in many ways. People do, after all, travel to the US for medical care. My point is that there is likely a better local optimum out there than the one you suggest, and coming off as if the problem of healthcare is “solved” is news to people under any system who are suffering due to its inefficiencies or inequities. For example, I live in the US - I have CF and have been taking a drug for more than a year that is extremely effective. It has yet to be approved in some universal healthcare systems, likely due to its high cost (given the small patient population and its extremely high R&D costs.) This is literally killing people who would be alive had they been able to access the drug.
There may be edge cases, but on the whole if people in the US had the health care systems of the UK, France, Germany, Japan, or pretty much any other developed country, they would riot in the streets if the US system were suddenly forced on them.
Nothing funny about it. It's grim, but it beats dead people as the default case. We have a lower life expectancy in the US than Cuba, a nation with a GDP per capita of 8,821 USD. A country where the average person's annual wages wouldn't buy them half of a ten year old used Toyota Corolla has better health outcomes. We have people begging bystanders not to call them an ambulance when they're grievously injured, because they can't afford it.
So yeah, there are a handful of people out of thousands where this system works great. We shouldn't optimize the entire system for hundreds of millions of people for these edge cases.
You've set up a nice little fallacy for yourself in the form of declaring people you don't care about as "edge cases." I'm glad you're acknowledging that your original claim of the problem of allocating heathcare for people is not "solved" though.
Let me cut to the chase: a better system is probably one where competitive market forces are leveraged to drive down (actual) costs and drive up innovation where it is an optimal strategy, and social program-oriented solutions are deployed when that is the bad, unethical, impractical or suboptimal approach, with an overarching mechanism to regulate over time the transition from the former to the latter. If you remove the incentives that come with a free market for healthcare, it comes with benefits and costs. Stop acting as though it is cost free. It isn't.
I never took issue with your claim that healthcare in the US has problems which are solved through universal systems. I took issue with your claim that universal systems are a panacea that solve all relevant problems, and the implication that trying to hill climb to a better optimum is not worthwhile to improve outcomes.
> You've set up a nice little fallacy for yourself in the form of declaring people you don't care about as "edge cases."
I never said I don't care about anyone. This is a pretty simple trolley problem. One track has 1 million people tied up, one track has ten. I value the lives of everyone equally.
> I took issue with your claim that universal systems are a panacea that solve all relevant problems
I never said that. I said they were superior to our system, which is apparent in terms of costs and outcomes.
