Basically the way things work in the US is that even if you can get an overwhelming majority of people to agree that something is a problem, you will never get them to agree on a solution.

In this instance, the two proposed solutions are: make healthcare the government's responsibility like many countries that don't have this problem, or do nothing because that solution isn't perfect.

No, the problem is that the actions of the federal government aren't even correlated to public opinion any more.

When Obamacare was passed, 70% of the population wanted Medicare for all instead:

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/412545-70-...

In 2020, 54% supported single payer health care:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/09/29/increasing-... overage/

I can't find any post-covid polls, but states are currently trying to step in and implement it locally. Don't hold your breath.

Edit: the medicare for all poll was under trump

I literally linked those two polls just yesterday, hah [0]. Did you see my comment, or did you just happen to do a similar search and get those results?

As I mention in my other comment, I speculate the possibility that people think "Single payer" and "Medicare For All" are different things [1] and so report a different opinion on each, similar to how the ACA was viewed MUCH more favorably than ObamaCare despite one being the nickname for the other.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31755822

[1] ACKSHUALLY, single-payer doesn't HAVE to be simply expanding Medicare to everyone. It could be done in some other way, but the core idea of the government paying for everyone's healthcare is still the same.

There is a fair bit of data on this and most of the difference is around prohibiting of private supplemental insurance.

Medicare is generally understood to work with supplemental insurance. Single Payer is often marketed as a prohibiting supplemental insurance.

The whole topic is disgusting, particularly the rejection of opt-in Medicare at cost by both sides.

This rejection is hypocritical to everything either party claims to stand for.

Similar search. Duck Duck Go, fwiw.

Further, neither side (seems to) accept incremental change and loves making the perfect the enemy of the good -- especially, imo, the left -- so they get nothing and complain about it.

You're going to have to elaborate on that one, considering that the ACA came from the Obama administration and was about the smallest incremental change possible. Not that republicans didn't try to repeal it several times anyway.

Sometimes incremental change happens, like the ACA, sometimes people go all accelerationist[0]/Bernie-or-bust on us and then someone vastly worse[1] gets elected. Seems like it's more the latter than the former these days considering how divided we are, politically.

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerationism

1: edited to add: imo. And probably in their o as well.

The healthcare sector is still quite profitable despite the debt, slow payments, and defaults. What is their motivation to change?

Nationalization.

Joseph-Ignace Guillotin invented something that would motivate them.

Yeah, but they're ridiculoisly overpriced, and regulatory capture around medical devices means new entrants' devices will never be approved by the FDA.

Remove the financial motivation.

Before Michael Crichton wrote fiction, he was a doctor and his first book, "Five Patients", was actually an examination of different topics in healthcare in the 1960's. One topic was the massive cost increases even back then. It's a pretty interesting read too.

The billionaires like it this way so there is no change necessary.

That's because a parent hasn't taken a loaded gun into an ER and held a bunch of people hostage.

Yet.