Re:High-Deductible Health Policies Linked to Delayed Diagnos...
by cameldrv on Saturday April 20, 2019 @07:32PM
(#19709588)
For sure. From having lived in Germany, it's not the payor that makes it cheap, it's the regulated prices. There is simply a (low) price that everyone pays when they go to the hospital.
We also have something similar in the U.S., given that roughly half of medical care is paid for by the government. Medicare sets prices for each CPT code, and they do it through a formula that depends on geography, and something called Relative Value Units.
This is done nominally by the Center for Medicare Services, but they rubber stamp the work of the Specialty Society Relative Value Scale Update Committee, which is a group of doctors appointed by their respective medical societies to decide how much Medicare should pay them. When doctors can simply tell the government how much they should be paid, what do you think is gonna happen?
Re:High-Deductible Health Policies Linked to Delayed Diagnos...
by conanbatt on Saturday April 20, 2019 @09:12PM
(#19709950)
People really do not get that the rotten core of the healthcare market is regulatory capture, and that a bigger healthcare system will mean bigger regulatory capture.
Re:High-Deductible Health Policies Linked to Delayed Diagnos...
by winter_blue on Saturday April 20, 2019 @09:52PM
(#19710092)
This. I'd love if public policy researchers could find ways to end or dramatically reduce the (basically corrupt) regulatory capture the health care industry orchestrates.
Plenty of developed countries like Germany and France have better access to health care (that costs a lot less) while still being multi-payer with private insurances. Although in the US we just seem to only pay attention to Canada and the NHS so universal health care and single-payer are tied together.
Honestly I think people's expectations have gotten much too high about single-payer solving all our problems. Clearly other developed countries have gotten their health care (relatively) in order without doing single payer. And we basically already have single payer for age 65+ and the costs there still aren't nearly in line with everyone else. The US definitely spends much more (as a % of GDP) than everyone else (to not dramatically better results) but single-payer or not doesn't seem to be the key difference.