You make some valid points, but private healthcare is not a panacea and the current medical aid establishment is not sustainable. Would you support collapsing the 80+ medical aid schemes into one or two funds? Countries that get the best value for spend usually only have single funds even if they have a mix of public and private provision. This would improve efficiencies gained from large risk pools and ensure greater power in negotiation around pricing. Medical scheme administration also needs to be made more transparent and separated entirely from schemes themselves. For example, while Discovery of Fedhealth medical schemes are not for profit, their administrative components are. What incentive is there to keep costs down if schemes and administrators are essentially one? Whose interest are the trustees of schemes serving if they are, in reality, beholden to the shareholders of administrators?