Aradhus wrote: So if we were looking at other countires to see what works and what doesnt, We'd be looking almost primarily at countires which have socialised medicine
Incorrect. Countries with a private healthcare model but mandatory purchase requirements - such as Switzerland and Singapore (and, to a lesser extent, Holland) - are generally ranked much higher in key measurement categories than the factory-hospitals of Britain/Australia/New Zealand/Canada.
The factory-hospital model is almost unique to "the Big 5 Minus 1" of the English-speaking world and has never been viewed by anyone as a best-practices approach, owing to the long queues for treatment, often dilapidated/non-hygienic state of facilities, lack of adequate staffing levels or distribution of care, limitations on access to advanced equipment and pharmaceuticals, etc.
In that sense, Obamacare was probably the best approach in its emulation of the Swiss model; that is, no fundamental change to the style, modernity or delivery of US healthcare that would diminish down to factory-hospital levels the quality of service to the 92% that had access to it, but extension of that service to the 8% who had no access and were dragging down national averages by their lack of care. Though, I think one can still be legitimately opposed to it if one weighs personal freedom above extending police authority to health insurance corporations. But, ultimately, that's an ideological - not policy - debate.
