3 ms·
I think this is a great argument for a single payer system. Let the government and hospitals duke it out. When it's the government's money that is being lost, t
by mnm1 9y ago
I think this is a great argument for a single payer system. Let the government and hospitals duke it out. When it's the government's money that is being lost, the government might actually care and start negotiating with these providers. Even if it doesn't, at the very least, patients lives won't be ruined by bills for services that they had no control over or knew the cost of beforehand. Not only that, but the government can afford it. When they're losing trillions of dollars on the defense side, I'm certain they can pay for every medical procedure in the country and still have plenty left over. This whole idea that the government doesn't have money to pay for healthcare and other necessary social services is such fucking bullshit when they have the ability to lose trillions in defense and just shrug it off. That's not even mentioning the money that isn't lost on the defense side. Unfortunately, I don't think people have the capability to push their government to spend that money correctly. But that's a different problem altogether.
- arrty88 9y agoSince when has government cared about losing money?
- mnm1 9y agoThat's my point. They don't care that much. And if they decide to care at some point, they have the resources to fight it out. Let these abstract entities (gov't, healthcare providers) fight it out on their own so that people don't have to die.
- int_19h 9y agoSingle payer is overly restrictive (although it would still be a lot better than what we have now). A non-profit public option, with an explicit legislative grant to negotiate prices with its full strong-arming ability, would deal with this stuff just as well, while still enabling people to shop for insurance if and when they want to.