Doctors most certainly see a better percentage in treating healthy people, insurance companies also go through extraordinary efforts to insure only healthy people.
An artificially manipulated pool of risk provides no incentive for efficiency, but plenty to shed liabilities.
If UHC was instituted and insurers were no longer allowed to turn away people with preexisting conditions any government run plan would certainly be able to compete financially. With the playing field fair for everyone, those companies who failed to lower their bottom line costs would go out of business, which sounds like an argument that should be coming from a Republican.
Private schools do better than public ones and they sure better, they get to pick who goes there, but thats hardly proof of a superior system.
So, then not a single person has had the same MD for 20 years?:dubious: Whoops. I have, even though I changed plans three times. My Bro has too, since he worked for the feds for 20 years.
Of course, some people have changed plans and have stayed with the same MD for 20 years. And some people have changed plans and their doctors didn’t take the new plans , and other people have stayed in the same plan but their doctors stopped participating. What I don’t understand is why you think a universal plan would be worse- sure, there’s no guarantee that my doctor would participate in the universal plan , but there’s no guarantee he’ll continue to participate in my current plan either. I’ve had more than one doctor stop participating in my plan.
As far as what happens when your doctor doesn’t participate in a universal plan? Well, what happens now when your doctor doesn’t participate with your insurance? You pick a new doctor or you pay out of pocket and maybe get some reimbursement , assuming you don’t have an HMO type plan that doesn’t reimburse for non-participating providers. What exactly is the difference ?
At the least, go to someone who makes a credible pretense of respecting your intelligence, and tells lies a bit less transparent than “Stephen Hawking would have died under the British NHS”. :rolleyes:
Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. Your brother has been insured by a carrier approved by the FEHB program for 20 years. The odds that he has been with the same carrier for all that time are virtually nil. These are the carriers approved under FEHB. Your brother can choose from virtually any of them in any given year, depending on where he lives.
Even if he has been with the same carrier all that time, he won’t be on the same plan; insurers change plan offerings constantly.
And in the UK I’ve been going to the same GP Practice for the last 20 years. Although I could swap any time. And if I need an op I get to look at data and choose who I want it done by also. Might mean travelling to another city but I have the choice.
The only differences are - I’m not left to rot if I don’t have insurance and there’s no company trying to wriggle out of treating me lest it takes some money out of the bottom line.
And if I wanted I could have supplementary private insurance and pay money to leap frog queues etc. Providing of course I don’t fall into one of the billion loopholes and exemptions the private insurance comes littered with so they can wriggle out of treating me.
And I don’t have to worry about health care when considering jobs.
Not seeing any sort of up side to the US system for the majority of people.
Well, in the short term, switching to a single payer model would be disruptive, expensive, and cause significant job losses until public sector hiring caught up with private sector layoffs.
It would also reduce the availability of top level care somewhat for those with the ability to pay.
Let’s see. I (God forbid) were to lose my job. I decide feeding my kids and continuing to have a home is more important than paying for health insurance. It’s been a year and while I am making ends meet with two different part time jobs (which don’t offer insurance, of course) and continue to look for something better in my field.
Now, I get sick. Let’s take something simple and common like strep throat (bacterial).
I don’t have insurance and have no money. What exactly do I do? Hope it goes away (it is possible)? Wait until I am dying and go to the hospital? How do I pay the bill when it comes due?
In the meantime, I am either losing more money because I can’t work or I am going to work anyway and risking others because I am contagious.
Or, if you live up here in the Great White North, you don’t worry about that. Yeah, I will likely have to pay for the prescription for the antibiotics (about 6 bucks for the generic). You call your doctor, get an emergency appointment (if during the day) or go to a walk-in clinic (after hours) and you will be diagnosed within the hour. Given that the antibiotics will clear that up in a couple of days, you don’t miss much work and even better, you aren’t going to work sick and exposing your coworkers and their families to the contagion.
Do you really live in denial even after the huge recession you are having that it won’t happen to you? That you will never lose your job? Are you one of the few individuals who have enough money saved to cover a year without a job including insurance payments?
I think you parsed his statement incorrectly paranoia, he was saying there is no upside to the US system.
I’d like to correct him: there is no upside to the US system for the vast majority of citizens. The per capita costs are higher than every other country on Earth, so there’s not even the incentive of reduced cost for the top bracket of individuals by income. It is good for insurance company executives and the politicians they donate campaign funds to.
A system where there were no public funds appropriated for health at all would be good for those with the highest incomes in the short term, but they’d find it very difficult to employ US citizens in that scenario given their tendancy to die from preventable illnesses and they may be uncomfortable with people dying openly in the street.
Cause my Bro has.