The post you are reporting:
The problem DT1 is that you seem to be very concerned about remote eserotic and philosophical issues.
Personally I dont think those concerns matter at all.
The only thing here that matters is the availablility of health care and the quality of treatment,.
If you had cancer, I promise you, the only question you will have is what are the chances of surviving and you could not care less about who makes a profit from it. That is all that matters.
The possibility of shareholders seems to worry you but as I said in my post even in the US system the commercialism and interests of shareholders does not prevent the highest possible quality of care. Remember those very shareholders also require health care, they are human beings who will have brothers, sisters, sons and daughters in those health institutions as well. Their humanity does not stop because they own shares. Competition also helps maintain the high levels of service and care. Again as I said it is monopoly provision that offers the greatest risk of poor outcomes, private or state.
As for charities, there are many charity organisations worldwide that provide healthcare and are involved in the development of treatments. As part of their programme for instance what if Cancer UK decided to start a specialist cancer hospital, funded from insurance with any profits ploughed into their research projects? It would be as viable a project as any other hospital under my system whether commercial, a mutual or whatever. Strength in the system can come from a range of provision. Indeed for all I know they may have such a hospital now, if not my system would open up a new avenue for them, one that offers them greater potential that the relatively limited PME market does now.