The healthcare system today is public, meaning the state subsidizes healthcare. In America the healthcare system is private, and whoever wants healthcare at a high level like in Israel pays out of pocket. In short, capitalism. The question is whether, because of the current situation in which there are sectors, some of whose members choose not to work, it wouldn’t be better to privatize the healthcare system. Along the way that could also lower taxes and give each person a choice about the level at which they want to be treated.

The point is that this gives everyone the choice of how much to pay for healthcare too. It could be that there are people who prefer to save money and receive a lower level of care. Because it would lower taxes a lot, everyone would basically have choice and freedom.

Just think about the consequences of such a move. If full privatization were carried out (by the way, some parts of the healthcare system have already undergone partial privatization), people who cannot afford standard medical care would be harmed. For example: Israel’s population of people suffering from mental illness, which numbers several hundred thousand, most likely would not receive the monthly psychiatric follow-up they currently get through their health fund, nor would they receive rehabilitation services to help them find work, social frameworks, leisure activities, and housing arrangements, and the consequences of that could be severe. This is a population at high risk for suicide and secondary illnesses.

You’re asking whether to move to completely privatized, fully capitalist management. I can’t give an all-encompassing answer on that. I do agree with the general direction. But sweeping capitalism is too problematic. In any case, it would make sense to implement it only with regard to those who have the ability to earn more and choose not to do so. The question is what about their children, for example. In short, it’s complicated.