Because the entire international system isn't socialized, the socialist country in question functions economically like a large corporation. Ergo, it does not have to deal directly with the questions of valuation - those issues are largely settled in the USA. Because neither Canada nor Sweden represent or contain the bulk of the health "means of production" so to speak or the bulk of the world market, Sweden functions economically in regards to health care more as a company of 10 million employees that operate under a comprehensive health plan.

If the "core" health care economy, that is the USA, was socialized then the inherent problems with socialization will come into play. Remember me saying somewhere prior that one upside of socialization here at home, will be higher costs elsewhere in the world?

There are lots of reasons the costs are high here. Partly it being that the USA is the primary market for first line new drugs, that does play a part. New and experimental treatments are EXPENSIVE - to a degree that helps skew overall expenditure. So does the fact that most ultra rich come here for treatment, this adds to the overall health numbers.

There are certainly also structural problems with the way our insurance system works and the way govt regulates it that add unnecessarily to costs, but breaking down an analysis on where the pain points are is outside the scope of me slacking at work to cook up a post. Maybe I will revisit it tonight.

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)