In the philippines an MRI in the provinces costs just under $60. (But if you go to the capital, Manila, the price jumps to a whooping $150) In Ukraine it costs about $90 for an MRI, and i dont know if its B.S. or not, but I heard someone say an MRI in australia is about $20, but i havent checked that out yet.
The cost of a degree varies over Europe from free to way on up and doctors do have to pay for further qualification out of their own pockets after graduation in the UK. I was surprised by the number of US students in Scottish universities and colleges especially in post-grad courses.
Police, courts, paying for care and treatment of disabled people, ensuring old people have at least minimal pensions, allocating common resources to avoid over-use (tragedy of the commons, overfishing etc) - these are all things, apart from the military, that the government does better than the private sector. So your blanket statement is just wrong. No surprise, since it's made on pure ideological assumptions rather than any kind of impartial study of the evidence. And going by the data, government in non-US 1st world countries runs healthcare not only much cheaper, but in some ways more effectively than the US system. You cannot just dismiss this huge discrepancy by saying "doh, how can the government solution be better?" because the facts show that in one way - pure cost - it is hugely better (even though in other ways it is worse, e.g. research or high-end treatment or waiting lists). You actually have to answer to the facts and defend your position, you don't get to do a Rush Limbaugh and just spew out some brainless unsupported soundbite based on nothing but pure prejudice.
Yes, that's why it performs much better than the flawed UK system. It's kept some of the benefits of a free market system (e.g. competition) whilst attending to the social justice mandate that most people feel about healthcare.
French get higher life expectancy, and medical expenses are not the number 1 cause of personal bankruptcy as they are in the USA (most of which bankrupts had health insurance when they got ill). In fact, almost no one in France (or anywhere else in the 1st world ex-USA) goes broke due to medical bills. Your claim that government intervention increases cost is also contradicted by the facts. For example, Singapore has lower taxes than USA but healthcare is cheaper - by a factor of 3-4 (measured by spending per capita PPP adjusted) there too. And health stats in Singapore are better than the USA - longer life expectancy, lower child death rate, lower adult death rate. The UK with its much-derided NHS spends 1/3 what the USA does per capita on health, yet has higher life expectancy and lower child death rates. And the UK has lower tax rates than France, and an unemployment rate almost identical to the USA (8.4% vs 8.3%). So, it's pretty clear that you are just spouting opinions without any regard for the facts. The facts show that the USA has an incredibly expensive healthcare system, yet has an incredibly unhealthy population. They are paying Ferrari prices and ending up with Skodas. The most likely culprit is that the system of healthcare provision is allowing the medical industry in the USA to earn large economic rents relatively unconnected to the quality of service they provide. If there is a way to fix that, then there is a duty to find this out. The people can then decide if they want better health and lower prices, or whether they want to preserve the liberty of the medical profession to keep earning its economic rent. But at least it will be an informed choice.
And this shows that the idea it's a free market system is complete BS. You never consented to paying a dime, so under a true free market system your bill would be $0. Unconsenting bills make it a system of force, no different to taxation, except with taxation there is at least some democratic accountability.
private insurance is not a subsidy. your use of obviously shows the same lack of expertise and knowledge,