I agree the system in the US is bad, certainly expensive. I’m no expert on it.
I was speaking in generalities because I do not believe a for-profit health care system is inherently immoral or bad. Nor that lives must be saved at any cost. Nor even that health care is any sort of fundamental right, so far as such things exist. I believe a for-profit competitive market system will provide the best healthcare at the lowest cost. The reason that a for-profit system is not at odds with the interest of a civilized society is that not fulfilling contractual obligations leads to lawsuits and people not taking insurance, which leads to loss of profits, which means it is not a good business practice. But I also recognize that the system is complex and sometimes perverse incentives and immoral actors exist and achieving this fair market system is difficult.
Any system where managers spend government money and have minimal incentive to cut costs will lead to inflated prices and huge bureaucracies. Inflated prices mean less people can receive the help they need, because the amount of money to spend on healthcare is limited and everything is a balancing act. Also lower wages for healthcare professionals, who tend to prefer the private sector.
People wait years for non-critical care that is readily available in the private sector. 6 months for a simple consultation, another 6 to a year to see a specialist, then who knows how long to be scheduled for surgery without the right connections. If you can’t afford it is is certainly better than the alternative but there is a cost to this inefficient and expensive system. On the other hand critical life-saving care is usually available for free in a timely manner, which is why I am ambivalent about it.
I’ll leave it to those who live there to provide the prices of premiums.
In any case, UHC has been shown to be cheaper and provide better results than for-profit schemes. I would much rather have my medical needs met without having to declare bankruptcy, even if it means I’ll have to wait a while for some liposuction.
If it had happened any other day than the day that the United Health CEO got shot, it would’ve been a minor story that got bandied about as outrage bait on RawStory and other liberal news sites. The fact that everyone was expresing collective rage against the insurance industry meant that it got noticed by a lot more people than it would have otherwise.
Not trying to upset the apple cart here, and I understand exactly what you’re saying, but I think it is important to note that the Canadian system (actually, provincial systems, because each province administers its own health care system; it is definitely not a national system, contrary to what many Americans think) does not cover everything. Employers still offer health benefits in the form of dental, vision, hearing, and prescription insurance, which provincial plans do not cover.
Still, things are improving. In some provinces, seniors 65+ get free prescriptions, and a new dental plan is being rolled out, so dental care will eventually fall under the single-payer umbrella. And I hope vision is included at some point, because I could use a new pair of glasses. But really, I have no complaints. No co-pays, no deductibles, no claims adjusters, no denials by non-medical personnel (i.e. claims adjusters), no questions—just care, with no out-of-pocket cost at point of service, delivered by professionals who are qualified to do their job. That’s as it should be.
And they generally do. Like I said they pay twice, through high taxes and expensive insurance premiums, without having the option to opt out of the cost of the public system.
I used to work at a Very Large Health Insurance Company. That, in a nutshell, describes the CEO’s we had while I was there. “Nice guys”, lots of charisma, charming, could be very generous to individuals they knew. At work, all business and “money extraction”. Because one illness is a tragedy and a million illlnesses are a statistic.
While sociopathy might be an asset in some aspects of the business world, one does not have to be an actual sociopath to get “sociopathic” results.
That said - there were are a whole bunch of nasty, judgemental, selfish, unempathic people in the company where I worked, to go along with the idealistic and empathic people who tried to do the right thing.
Regardless of whether the assassinated CEO was a “nice guy” or an evil MF in his personal life, he represented a company who business model involves trying to avoid paying to customers whenever and however possible. Which leaves no customer with warm and fuzzy feelings towards said company.
This animosity is nothing new - back in the late 1990’s when I was working for the Evil Insurance Empire security was definitely a major concern, because every once in awhile angry customers or relatives of deceased customers attempted to storm the castle and express their unhappiness in person. So I can’t say I’m entirely surprised this happened.
I believe you are wrong. A competitive market system incentives reducing costs and maximizing profits. In health care that translates to charging more and providing less. You might wind up with a few people getting fantastic care, but a lot of people just won’t get care, or won’t get sufficient care, which will lead to suffering and death.
As someone who has had five surgeries in the past two years under the jacked-up US heathcare “system”, the prospect of yet another surprise billing because one of my “procedures” ran longer than some algorithm predicted gives me chills. I’ve been close enough to bankruptcy these past couple years despite insurance considered “good”. There’s also the fear that a surgery might be rushed or, worse yet, a patient shorted on anesthesia to try to get around that which… well, it’s frightening.
I don’t give a damn about anesthesiologists or the size of any boats they may or may not own - I’m worried as hell about not waking up during surgery and not being financially broken.
So serious question, why is healthcare so different from other free markets in the US? The US has a fantastic agriculture industry, with great outputs and good quality. What makes non-socialized agriculture better than socialized agriculture, and why doesn’t the same apply to healthcare? Why doesn’t the farmer or big corporation just go “I will produce less and charge more” leading to less food at higher prices and more suffering?
If you raise a moral objection to “letting” (huge air-quotes there because it doesn’t work like that) people suffer and die because healthcare is expensive, fair enough, I’m not a fan of that either, but that is a different point than the one you are arguing for.
I honestly don’t know if/the extent to which that’s true. It’s definitely part of the story that we’re told.
OTOH, I once looked into the likelihood of getting a competent Plaintiff’s attorney to take one’s Medical Malpractice case, let alone prevailing in Court. The odds were awful.
My WAG is that it’s not materially different with Insurance Bad Faith.
The notion that this is “contractual” and subject to the beneficent forces of the “free market” denies the reality of the profound power imbalance.
Yes. I know that we can all Google and find high-profile cases with sizeable jury awards in bad faith cases. They represent only a snapshot of the numerator, but not the denominator.
And the denominator is people … lots of people … likely with tragic and meritorious stories that don’t get told.
This is something that annoys me - I’m not saying that you specifically feel this way, but a lot of what I’ve been seeing is outrage at the insurance companies for capping what they pay for anesthesia but not a word about anesthesiologists who charge based on time. I’ve never heard of surgeons who charge based on how long the operation takes , it only seems to be the anesthesiologists. Who also are one of the groups that often don’t accept the same insurances as the hospital where they work - where again, people tend to blame the insurance company but not the doctors who aren’t in-network nor the hospitals that don’t require all doctors who work in their facility to be in the same networks as the hospital.
One of the more attractive features of a Universal system is that you are covered, even if you are not working, correct?
In the US your health insurance is tied to your job (if you are under 65). If you are not working, for whatever reason, you either have to get it yourself or go without. Many people work just for the benefits, and may delay retirement until they qualify for Medicare, because private insurance is expensive. Some companies only offer crappy insurance as well. Smaller businesses aren’t even required to provide insurance to their employees.
Looking at Universal systems it seems like one could not worry about being insured if they wanted to take a break to travel, stop working to care for a family member, start a new business venture, etc. Right? Because that sounds like a nice freedom.
Well, yes, but this point jumped out at me and should be clarified. As a Luxembourg resident, I get health coverage in-country, no matter what. If I travel in the EU, I’m also covered due to reciprocal agreements (though there are some nuances and administrative steps). However, it gets complicated if I travel outside the EU. If I’m in the US, for example, and something happens, I’m basically SOL, because the US is so ridiculously expensive the Luxembourgish system refuses to have anything to do with it. I have to buy supplemental traveler’s insurance to ensure coverage there. It’s not wildly expensive, mostly because it’s short term, but is entirely out of my own pocket.
Agree on the need for travel insurance, but my point is taking time to travel. Like between jobs. Like taking the summer off to see the wonders of Luxembourg. Or travel around within the US. We can’t do that. Quitting a job to travel also means no insurance unless one buys it. I’ve been there.