Removing insurance companies isn't going to create more doctors or equipment.
Not spending a shitload money on useless middleman will certainly allow to buy more equipment and hire more doctors. After all insurance companies profit come directly from the money spent on healthcare system.
OECD countries spend more federally on healthcare, but they have different budget priorities. Apparently, the primary purpose of the US is to be the world police.
That's really unrelated to the discussion. My point is that US spends a shitload of money on healthcare per capita while getting pretty poor outcomes out of that. In short, it is using that money very inefficiently.
Insurance companies should work by amortizing risk across the population, but that's not how insurance is used in the US. Instead, insurance is treated as an optional health spending account. Insurance will never work that way.
I am not sure if I understand this your point correctly. But if insurance don't work to amortize risk across the population, then I think it is not fit for purpose and should be replaced with a different system. It's not even required to invent that system - just look at other OECD countries.
And as to your last point, a fair number of people in the US aren't comfortable with the government making decisions about who lives and dies.
That of course is their choice. It puzzles me that they are more comfortable with private companies making decisions about who lives and dies, but to each their own.
Almost anything derogatory you could say about today's software design would be accurate. -- K.E. Iverson