I don’t know whether you’re referring to that 18th-century Prussian philosopher or reaching all the way back to Rabbi Yeshu ben Pantera, or whoever it was. BUT start another thread to debate ancient history or the Philosophy of Ethics. This here thread is about the United States of America, a place where the “decent maxim” you define only appears at TheOnion.com.
The profit motive means that the industry has lots and lots of incentive to deny coverage to non-profitable patients (i.e. chronically ill, those who can’t afford insurance but don’t qualify for assistance, etc.). This will never go away unless we get rid of the profit motive for treating illness and injury. We should retain the profit motive for innovation in new pharmaceutical and medical technology, but that doesn’t require a profit motive for the care itself.
Do they happen in the countries that already have UHC?
Are those countries unable to fund their cost of healthcare that is 40% less than ours?
Have drug companies already consolidated or reduced R&D due to 80% of their customer base being on UHC?
Do the people of other countries get denied treatment from their UHC more often than people in the US get denied treatment from their insurance? Do we count the millions who don’t have any insurance and just suffer through whatever their ailment is without any treatment?
Magiver told us about his 2 weeks of misery waiting for his kidney stone, I wonder what he would have done if he didn’t have any insurance. I wonder what he expects the uninsured to do if they get a kidney stone. Should they just take 2 tylenol and go to the ER when it feels like they’re about to die?
That’s the bit that would horrify us, morally speaking. I don’t know what happens in countries with a more or less universal, but insurance-based (i.e., individual reimbursement), basis. But in the NHS, treatments might AFAIK not be offered, on occasion but not automatically, only if they are not cost-effective, or not clinically essential, calculated *on a whole population basis, NOT in terms of each individual on each oaccasion *.
Is it really fundamental to medical care to charge, and chase payment for, each individual item of treatment for each individual patient? That must be a substantial part of the overhead costs for you, but is there really no alternative funding mechanism?
I have really good medical insurance through my employer (I still pay $100/month for it). I have been living with neck pain since the end of December. I finally see a specialist next week. That is over 2 full months. I saw my primary care giver, then went to get an xray. It took a week to get approval to get an MRI. Then it took a week to get approval to schedule with the specialist. And the specialist is backed up so appointment is weeks out. And, I have to travel an hour and half to get there.
RAH RAH RAH USA!
You foreigners just don’t understand the problems of running a BIG country. One of our state like Florida or Texas is bigger than one of your entire itsy-bitsy COUNTRIES like Britain or France. And you don’t have the problems of ethnic diversity we do. Come back and give us advice after YOU save the world from Hitler or Soviet Russia single-handedly.
Disclaimer: The above may not be the views of septimus. Instead I am mimicking comments posted or recited by right-wing talk-show hosts and many of the more intellectual GOP voters.
Overall, preventative care does not save money (already cited many times in the past). One of the ideas of Obamacare was to reduce ER visits on the belief that patients would go to their PHPs instead. Both ER visits, and PHP visits, went up under Obamacare (also previously cited).
And the government, not being for profit, would have no reason to deny coverage. So costs would go up.
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t know if there’s a way to quantify those savings, though. Could you point me to a paper or something?
Yes, but at least right now I have a choice when I sign up for the policy. If the plan offered doesn’t cover my favorite medical treatment, I don’t have to sign the contract, and I don’t have to pay premiums. With single-payer, presumably if I don’t like the coverage, too bad so sad because I still have to pay taxes (the premium). I lose my leverage as an individual.
~Max
I’m not too worried about single-payer leading to sin taxes on unhealthy foods, etc. If that’s what you’re getting at.
~Max
My wife and I both work for different companies that both provide healthcare (we still have payroll deductions to pay for part of it). We have no choice in the health insurance company. I guess if we want a different choice in our health insurance we can simply change jobs to one that has a policy we like. Easy-peasy.
If you have a cite, please post it. I did try and do some cursory searching before making this thread, but nothing convinced me that single-payer is the way to go.
I found that sometimes the US is better at screening, for example, see this paper reporting that the US screens for breast cancer slightly more often than Canada. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.90.5.799
Then, you know, there are wait times. I’ve read that the average wait time to see a specialist could be months in some countries, compared to <1mo here. I think I raised this in the original post, too.
~Max
This can’t be right. People in this very thread are saying how fast and efficient private insurance is, and how there would be unacceptable wait times in a UHC system. Wait times that just do not exist in private insurance. Except for the two weeks that **Magiver **had to wait, and the months you had to wait.
Oh, you have a ‘favorite’ medical treatment, do you? Before we go any farther, you should be thanking Obama up and down for making it possible for you to get coverage with your pre-existing condition. Without him, and the ACA the Republicans are trying to destroy, it wouldn’t matter if your treatment was covered or not, no plan would offer you a contract to sign.
Because, dude, I was there. Pre-ACA, when my friend lost his job during the recession, he was on his way to “completely broke” with COBRA payments, and I asked why didn’t he just take his chances and drop coverage. His answer… “because I’ll never get coverage again.”
But, please tell me again about your “leverage as an individual”.
Right, but don’t you have national price controls?
~Max
If you don’t mind saying, how do you get your health insurance? Is it through your job? If so, you had a choice on which plan you wanted to sign up for?
As far as I know, AHIP is about lobbying. When doctors negotiate rates, they do not go to AHIP. When drug companies negotiate coverage, they do not go to AHIP. I don’t think the insurance companies of America are a monolith at all.
~Max
I don’t know if it’s okay with me or not.
I’m not quite sure what you mean by “a meltdown”, but I wouldn’t expect anarchy or WWIII because of some healthcare tax. At least, not directly…
~Max
Would you care to explain how a single-payer healthcare system does not get the largest possible pool of financial contributors?
~Max
Max, seriously, before there’s a debate, what are your desired policy goals? Because your goals may be completely incompatible with a single payer/M4A system, which means debating for single payer is a fruitless effort.
Be that as it may, I am working on the assumption that a single-payer healthcare system will be counterbalanced by sufficient taxes and/or savings to become budget neutral.
~Max