Socialized Medicine
Americans pay about twice as much as the citizens of any other country for their medical care, and don't get especially good care. By most measures of average health, we do rather poorly. It's hard not to believe that our incredibly complex and inefficient system is mostly responsible. Unlike the situation in other advanced countries, in the US large segments of the population have no health insurance. Uninsured persons are typically charged two to five times as much for their medical care as the insurance companies are charged for similar services. Almost all medical providers have a small army of employees whose mainor only job is to manage insurance and collections. This is a crappy system that costs too much and provides too little.
An easy answer is available. Essentially all other rich countries have universal health insurance covering everybody. The quality of care provided is typically very good, with average health outcomes comparing favorably to the US. The cost and complexity are much less, and most citizens of those countries are very satisfied with the medical care they receive. In the case of the best systems, for example that of France, patients like the simplicity receiving services without the complexity of filling out and tracking dozens of forms. Doctors like not having to hire an army of accountants to deal with hordes of insurance companies. In the best such systems, as in France, patients chose their doctors and doctors choose their patients.
The principal efficiencies of these systems is the elimination of tons of paperwork, and hordes of insurance company personnel whose job it is to try to get somebody else to pay, plus the advantage of the marketing muscle to drive advantageous deals with drug suppliers. (Americans pay much more for the same drugs than citizens of other countries).
So who hates this kind of plan? First, insurance companies - their role, if any would become much smaller. Second, big pharma, which would see its profits cut by lower average prices. Third, big for profit hospitals, who would probably lose some scope for gaming the system. Finally, all the hard core anti-government types.
An easy answer is available. Essentially all other rich countries have universal health insurance covering everybody. The quality of care provided is typically very good, with average health outcomes comparing favorably to the US. The cost and complexity are much less, and most citizens of those countries are very satisfied with the medical care they receive. In the case of the best systems, for example that of France, patients like the simplicity receiving services without the complexity of filling out and tracking dozens of forms. Doctors like not having to hire an army of accountants to deal with hordes of insurance companies. In the best such systems, as in France, patients chose their doctors and doctors choose their patients.
The principal efficiencies of these systems is the elimination of tons of paperwork, and hordes of insurance company personnel whose job it is to try to get somebody else to pay, plus the advantage of the marketing muscle to drive advantageous deals with drug suppliers. (Americans pay much more for the same drugs than citizens of other countries).
So who hates this kind of plan? First, insurance companies - their role, if any would become much smaller. Second, big pharma, which would see its profits cut by lower average prices. Third, big for profit hospitals, who would probably lose some scope for gaming the system. Finally, all the hard core anti-government types.
Comments
Post a Comment