It's not that weird an assumption.

The UK and others have a "postcode" lottery systen often because treatments are decided by local councils with help of NICE guidlines.

Often some areas of the country won't treat stuff the same way others will.  Hence if you had a problem you would think you would always head to one of the "nicer" areas... or more leniant then.  So you didn't get stuck with a more cheapscate council.

Yeah, i've always wondered why people raise hell about us "not being able to choose our own doctors" when that's more or less what we have now. Currently i'm not satisfied with my dermatologist, and wanted to change. There aren't too many in my region, and the nearest one outside the one i want to get rid of is not in my family's plan's network, so no go.

What would we be losing if it was the government telling us who couldn't treat us, and not some corporation?

They already are.... HMO's exist because of the government.

Apparently 45% of Healthcare spending is currently due to the government.

I asked the question because the issue if wait times comes up a lot, but he never has them. If his hospital never has wait times, why don't people just go to his hospital?

The only reason I could think, was you could not go to just any hospital.

And education is socialized in the US, and you can't go to any school. Your choices are based on where you live.

Just 45? If HMO's count under that, shouldn't it be more? I thought the HMO was the standard for most Americans

HMO's don't count for that.  HMO's are just anticompetitive groups that are around because of the government.

Due to Nixon and his attempts to get universal healthcare.

45% doesn't count that....

if your wondering around 28% of the country is currently covered under government programs.

The government spends between 45% and 56.1% of healthcare costs to cover 28% of the people... and they're the ones who are going to make things cheaper... somehow.

Not to mention that there is overlap and some of that 28% get private healthcare as well.

Yeah, but you can't equate "this issue is well-documented" with "this issue comes up more often than it doesn't". Hell, Kingston General's wait times were never too bad any of the times I had to go there, either for myself or when taking people who lived in residence. And that's in a college town where people get sick about as often as you please.

Your reasoning does not seem to hold water, since you can go to different hospitals. So what would the reason be? I think it's more likely that the answer is convenience: people just like going to hospitals that are closer, usually.

And I know education is (mostly) socialized in the US, but that ain't got much to do with systems outside of the US, now do it?

Sorry for interfering but I dont follow, and this sounds interesting.

Whats HMO and all these numbers?

What does "The government spends between 45% and 56.1% of healthcare costs to cover 28% of the people" refer to, in detail?

In Sweden (socialized health care) people in general can't choose a hospital or specialist. You can under certain conditions, but it's usually complicated - there's a general rule: only if your county's hospital(s) have a wait time of more than 3 months, you are allowed to seek treatment in another county's hospitals or specialists (but in practice they cheat with those 3 months, which become 4-5 months).

Basically 45 to 56 cents out of every dollar spent on healthcare is spent by the government.  To cover 28% of the people.

Leaving 44 to 55 cents out of every dollar spent on healthcare to cover 68% Of the people from the private sector.

HMO's are "Health Maitenince Orginzations."

Basically it's health insurance that only applies to certain doctors in certain areas.

I've never had one myself.  I opt to pay for regular health insurance.