Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nah because it would upset the free market. I mentioned in another comment when someone from Europe or Canada asked something to the effect of "how come everything has to be free market in US even healthcare and such". And I think the answer is we treat free market as a religion. We don't evaluate what is better, healthier, more rational answer for a problem. Like say, "How do we keep people from dying from anaphylax…
That's silly. How do you propose to "evaluate what is better, healthier, more rational"? I suppose some panel of experts could give you their best approximation, but it will always be sub-optimal. Markets exist in order to answer these questions, and they answer them by delegating the decision to every person involved in the decision, not by hoping a designated person can make a guess that's close enough. It appears…
"Ah, but what do you propose, eh, Mr. Expert?"
-"Oh, maybe this?"
"AHA! This flaw would prevent that from being a workable solution. Keep the status quo!"
As if (a) understanding that there is a problem necessarily means that one must understand the solution, or (b) as if we live in a vacuum and this hasn't been addressed by dozens of other nations.
It has been addressed. In a dozen different ways, with different pros and cons. I can't tell you if the British or German or Japanese method is better, but I can tell you that we're the only schmucks going bankrupt to avoid death by bee-sting.