6 ms·

And so it goes, National Healthcare like Britain or Canada is what America needs and what the medical establishment does not want. But somehow I think America w

by x5n1 11y ago

And so it goes, National Healthcare like Britain or Canada is what America needs and what the medical establishment does not want. But somehow I think America would screw that up as well.

Spoom 11y ago
For what it's worth, I have talked to doctors who want single payer just as much as some of us.
- jellicle 11y ago
  It is vastly less hassle for doctors to have to deal with a single entity for all reimbursements. No hiring collection agencies to hassle patients, no mysterious nonpayments, no switching networks, one set of rules to learn and that is it. They'll also probably end up paid a bit less under such a system. The tradeoff is worth it.
  - manigandham 11y ago
    Paid less maybe but save a massive amount on costs. Overall they'll come out with more margin and more time.
- randycupertino 11y ago
  I work in health tech and all 12 of the physicians I work with think single payer is the way to go.
  - HillRat 11y ago
    Having done my time in health care startups with an emphasis on billing and reimbursement flow, let me say that I would have been overjoyed to have been put out of business by single payer (or by a U.S. version that, like Medicare, would be "single, multiple private administrators"). Medical billing is just an utterly perverse environment to deal with, and the Feds were the only player who would consistently tell you exactly what to bill, how to bill, and why to bill it that way.
  - ghufran_syed 11y ago
    Have any of them worked in a single payer system?
narrator 11y ago
I think it would bankrupt the government if they did single payer without price caps on drugs. We already spend about double, as a percent of GDP, on health care compared to other countries. Getting the costs under control is the only way to approach reforming health care that's going to work.
- x5n1 11y ago
  So get those costs under control, it's not like you need profiteers like your boy Shkreli profiteering off this stuff. Also ban drug marketing while you are at it. They spend half that money on marketing the drugs to consumers.
  - metasean 11y ago
    But then we'd miss the entertaining statements, like: “Do not take Stelara if you are allergic to Stelara or any of its ingredients.” (Duh?) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZzRAGeXtgU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZzRAGeXtgU And many others - http://www.sluniverse.com/php/vb/off-topic/34611-crazy-drug-side-effect-warnings.html http://www.sluniverse.com/php/vb/off-topic/34611-crazy-drug-...
- vidarh 11y ago
  With single payer, the government suddenly holds a lot of cards even without explicitly making laws. Most drugs have alternatives. Facing the threat of having all drugs that have sufficiently good alternatives disappear off the approved prescription lists makes most pharmaceutical companies quite reasonable to negotiate with even for players like the UK government that "only" represents 60 million people.
stvswn 11y ago
When a little bit of socialism fails, why is the answer always more socialism?
- HarryHirsch 11y ago
  Because socialism works? Just today: change of health insurance. Need primary care physician. Takes six weeks to be seen. Six weeks, to be scheduled for minor surgery. You might choose to waste an hour on the phone to find a less booked-out physician. In Socialist Britain you are guaranteed to be seen within 48 hours! Here in the US the only thing guaranteed is the waste of time. Seems that is a feature of the plan. If you aren't seen on time you won't consume healthcare and the insurance gets to keep all the pretty money paid to them.
  - rbritton 11y ago
    From my understanding among people I know it does not work even close to that way in Canada. It's one of those things that's definitely up to the actual implementation.
    - jholman 11y ago
      What doesn't work that way in Canada? For that matter, doesn't work what way? If you mean that in Canada you're never ineligible for your physician because you changed insurance providers, that's basically right (except when you move between provinces, in which case you need to change physician anyway). So the whole problem cannot happen in Canada (nor in the U.K.). I'm not saying everything's roses and perfection in commie-land... I'm saying that the U.S. system is just obviously horribly worse than all the socialist implementations. (Well, okay, let's be fair... the U.S. system is probably better for the rich. When I was living in California, and had a medical incident, I got VERY good treatment... for which my employer's insurance company paid a HILARIOUS amount of money, and presumably charged my employer commensurate premiums. I mean, no-expenses-spared levels of treatment. I think Canadian doctors would have been slightly less cavalier about running up the bill.)
  - steve19 11y ago

by x5n1 11y ago

And so it goes, National Healthcare like Britain or Canada is what America needs and what the medical establishment does not want. But somehow I think America would screw that up as well.

Spoom 11y ago

For what it's worth, I have talked to doctors who want single payer just as much as some of us.

jellicle 11y ago
It is vastly less hassle for doctors to have to deal with a single entity for all reimbursements. No hiring collection agencies to hassle patients, no mysterious nonpayments, no switching networks, one set of rules to learn and that is it. They'll also probably end up paid a bit less under such a system. The tradeoff is worth it.
- manigandham 11y ago
  Paid less maybe but save a massive amount on costs. Overall they'll come out with more margin and more time.
randycupertino 11y ago
I work in health tech and all 12 of the physicians I work with think single payer is the way to go.
- HillRat 11y ago
  Having done my time in health care startups with an emphasis on billing and reimbursement flow, let me say that I would have been overjoyed to have been put out of business by single payer (or by a U.S. version that, like Medicare, would be "single, multiple private administrators"). Medical billing is just an utterly perverse environment to deal with, and the Feds were the only player who would consistently tell you exactly what to bill, how to bill, and why to bill it that way.
- ghufran_syed 11y ago
  Have any of them worked in a single payer system?

narrator 11y ago

I think it would bankrupt the government if they did single payer without price caps on drugs. We already spend about double, as a percent of GDP, on health care compared to other countries. Getting the costs under control is the only way to approach reforming health care that's going to work.

x5n1 11y ago
So get those costs under control, it's not like you need profiteers like your boy Shkreli profiteering off this stuff. Also ban drug marketing while you are at it. They spend half that money on marketing the drugs to consumers.
- metasean 11y ago
  But then we'd miss the entertaining statements, like: “Do not take Stelara if you are allergic to Stelara or any of its ingredients.” (Duh?) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZzRAGeXtgU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZzRAGeXtgU And many others - http://www.sluniverse.com/php/vb/off-topic/34611-crazy-drug-side-effect-warnings.html http://www.sluniverse.com/php/vb/off-topic/34611-crazy-drug-...
vidarh 11y ago
With single payer, the government suddenly holds a lot of cards even without explicitly making laws. Most drugs have alternatives. Facing the threat of having all drugs that have sufficiently good alternatives disappear off the approved prescription lists makes most pharmaceutical companies quite reasonable to negotiate with even for players like the UK government that "only" represents 60 million people.

stvswn 11y ago

When a little bit of socialism fails, why is the answer always more socialism?

HarryHirsch 11y ago
Because socialism works? Just today: change of health insurance. Need primary care physician. Takes six weeks to be seen. Six weeks, to be scheduled for minor surgery. You might choose to waste an hour on the phone to find a less booked-out physician. In Socialist Britain you are guaranteed to be seen within 48 hours! Here in the US the only thing guaranteed is the waste of time. Seems that is a feature of the plan. If you aren't seen on time you won't consume healthcare and the insurance gets to keep all the pretty money paid to them.
- rbritton 11y ago
  From my understanding among people I know it does not work even close to that way in Canada. It's one of those things that's definitely up to the actual implementation.
  - jholman 11y ago
    What doesn't work that way in Canada? For that matter, doesn't work what way? If you mean that in Canada you're never ineligible for your physician because you changed insurance providers, that's basically right (except when you move between provinces, in which case you need to change physician anyway). So the whole problem cannot happen in Canada (nor in the U.K.). I'm not saying everything's roses and perfection in commie-land... I'm saying that the U.S. system is just obviously horribly worse than all the socialist implementations. (Well, okay, let's be fair... the U.S. system is probably better for the rich. When I was living in California, and had a medical incident, I got VERY good treatment... for which my employer's insurance company paid a HILARIOUS amount of money, and presumably charged my employer commensurate premiums. I mean, no-expenses-spared levels of treatment. I think Canadian doctors would have been slightly less cavalier about running up the bill.)
- steve19 11y ago