... one big reason why Universal Health Care is sane - time and worries saved
A good article here comparing what it's like.
I can't help it you didn't bother to specify. If we're talking about Uncle Sam, it's a lot different than talking about state and local governments. For instance, when tiny, almost microscopic Vermont tried their own UHC it failed, because it is such a small risk pool that the math wouldn't work.
Canada however, has a system even more involved than the single payer model most Americans seem interested in, among those who are looking at alternate models.
You are not recognizing the problem. The problem is provider prices not the cost of insurance. The reason it didn't work in
Vermont is not because of the small risk pool. It didn't work because Vermont has to pay 10k per person per year, whereas Canada only has to pay 5k per person per year.
And how do you suppose the prices get cut in half for Canada?
People are going to have to pay for health care either way. The difference is that when government is the payer, the government can negotiate for lower costs because the profit motive is much less. This keeps households solvent, which helps the economy.
This idea of "your health care isn't free, someone still pays for it" is oversimplified. Of course someone pays for it, but they pay less, and costs are distributed over an aggregate population instead of a multi-tiered one. Household bankruptcy is a bane on domestic economy and lack of health insurance is a prime reason for it.
You are not recognizing the problem. The problem is provider prices not the cost of insurance. The reason it didn't work in
Vermont is not because of the small risk pool. It didn't work because Vermont has to pay 10k per person per year, whereas Canada only has to pay 5k per person per year.
You are not recognizing the problem. The problem is provider prices not the cost of insurance. The reason it didn't work in
Vermont is not because of the small risk pool. It didn't work because Vermont has to pay 10k per person per year, whereas Canada only has to pay 5k per person per year.
You got it backwards. Prices don't get cut in half in Canada, they get doubled in the US.
... one big reason why Universal Health Care is sane - time and worries saved
A good article here comparing what it's like.
Ok but they are basing their judgment on out of pocket expense. If I shattered my elbow and needed surgery, I would likely have it within a day, two at the most and not have to live two weeks with a shattered elbow. My perpetually uninsured brother shattered his foot about 4 pm and underwent surgery the following morning. Sure he got a giant bill for it, but he never paid it. He lost his job because he couldn't work with a broken foot so they didn't have anything to do a garnishment on. He didn't own anything they could put a lien on. Eventually they just gave up trying to collect anything from him.
... one big reason why Universal Health Care is sane - time and worries saved
A good article here comparing what it's like.
How do you suppose this happens?
Would it have anything to do with the fact that Canada is able to exercise more leverage re prices?
... one big reason why Universal Health Care is sane - time and worries saved
A good article here comparing what it's like.
If you have a bone fracture in the UK you do not wait for two weeks with it. Not in Canada either.
And your perpetually uninsured brother took a monster hit to his credit rating, so maybe that's part of the reason why so many in this country are in bad financial shape despite all the record jobs, despite the monster stock market numbers, despite everything.
Forty percent of working Americans and legal residents do not have enough savings to handle a four hundred dollar emergency.
Anyway, universal health care does not equal living with a shattered elbow for two weeks.
MYTH.
I'm going to do a post on it in the healthcare section soon.
Well, you're on the political left. Healthcare is a service, it's all labor. Is driving down the salaries of doctors and nurses and every other cartel member who works in a price-gouging American hospital something you would support? Typically the left stupidly supports "the worker" and the associated labor cartels.
Peter Clark, Family physician with ALS - -
"My solo family practice grew over the 25 years I had it. It did not grow in terms of enrolled patients or patient visits. In grew in terms of staff to address CLIA - Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments, PQRI -Physician Quality Reporting Initiative, PQRS - Physician Quality Reporting System, PCMH - Patient Centered Medial Home, ICD-10 - International Classification of Disease Version 10, MU - Meaningful Use which required not only adoption of an EHR, but engaging patients in its use when not in the office, participation in an ACO - Accountable Care Organization, participation in a PHO - Physician Hospital Organization. Having dozens of insurers means jumping through hoops set differently for each one. It means different formularies for each one with those changing annually or more frequently. Twenty years ago I told the Medical Director of the biggest insurer in our area that I would take Medicare’s much inferior payments provided that he followed Medicare rules. He was not open to this.
Over the same 25 years there has been a marked increased in staff levels in US hospitals. Sadly that has not meant more nurses; it has meant more administrators and their support staff."
The OP says clearly, "My NHS surgeon was able to schedule me in for the three-hour surgery less than two weeks after my fall,..." and if your click on the link for the whole story you will find, "The comparative ease and security of the NHS is why the system retains such high levels of support from the British public, despite frustrations with wait times and other aspects of service provision.
As for that particular brother, I imagine this was just another drop in the bucket as far as his bad credit. Whenever some garnishes his wages, he just quits and goes somewhere else until they track him down, rinse and repeat.....
[FONT=q_serif]As we continue toward universal coverage (more a question of when - not if), other changes to our system are likely - including what med school costs - and how that's funded. Other countries (France for example) have a system whereby med students graduate with $0 debt. We could do that as well - and we might have to. Graduating with $160K (average) student debt is insane - and leads to other systemic problems. Most notably this one where there's a shortage of primary care physicians (nationally) and where specialists are overpaid. It's an artificial imbalance that's largely created by student debt.
[/FONT]
My one anecdote would be weak evidence whether it was positive or not.
QUORA: Will a single-payer healthcare system significantly decrease doctors' salaries in the U.S.?
Peter Clark, Family physician with ALS - -
"My solo family practice grew over the 25 years I had it. It did not grow in terms of enrolled patients or patient visits. In grew in terms of staff to address CLIA - Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments, PQRI -Physician Quality Reporting Initiative, PQRS - Physician Quality Reporting System, PCMH - Patient Centered Medial Home, ICD-10 - International Classification of Disease Version 10, MU - Meaningful Use which required not only adoption of an EHR, but engaging patients in its use when not in the office, participation in an ACO - Accountable Care Organization, participation in a PHO - Physician Hospital Organization. Having dozens of insurers means jumping through hoops set differently for each one. It means different formularies for each one with those changing annually or more frequently. Twenty years ago I told the Medical Director of the biggest insurer in our area that I would take Medicare’s much inferior payments provided that he followed Medicare rules. He was not open to this.
Over the same 25 years there has been a marked increased in staff levels in US hospitals. Sadly that has not meant more nurses; it has meant more administrators and their support staff."
...but those are almost examples of federal rules or Medicare initiatives. And they're generally good things. Not sure why any would go away under single-payer.
... one big reason why Universal Health Care is sane - time and worries saved
A good article here comparing what it's like.
Wait times do not apply to things which generally fall under emergency surgery, like a bone fracture.
Wait times for specialty referrals are longer. Those who are willing to pay an extra premium may be able to access private sector care faster.
The author did not say that she got her surgery immediately or even the same week. You are a fan of the NHS or whatever, and that is fine. It is not a flawless system. There is a reason most Canadians have private insurance as well. Socialized medicine countries generally do not have the stand by capacity as the US both in terms of empty beds, readily accessible diagnostic equipment, etc. There are also reasons a lot of veterans don't use tricare or go to the VA.
In the end, we are talking about needing to get coverage for the last 10% of Americans with no insurance. We can certainly continue to whittle away at that number without completely disrupting the 90% who do have coverage.
The author did not say that she got her surgery immediately or even the same week. You are a fan of the NHS or whatever, and that is fine. It is not a flawless system. There is a reason most Canadians have private insurance as well. Socialized medicine countries generally do not have the stand by capacity as the US both in terms of empty beds, readily accessible diagnostic equipment, etc. There are also reasons a lot of veterans don't use tricare or go to the VA.
In the end, we are talking about needing to get coverage for the last 10% of Americans with no insurance. We can certainly continue to whittle away at that number without completely disrupting the 90% who do have coverage.