4 ms·
> They will undoubtedly receive worse care You're going to have to provide a lot more support for that claim. All you've really provided is the implication tha
by abalone 9y ago
> They will undoubtedly receive worse care
You're going to have to provide a lot more support for that claim. All you've really provided is the implication that "most expensive" = "best". But expense is also a result of inefficiencies, and we "undoubtedly" have a less efficient system (more administrative overhead.. I can cite sources if anyone doubts it).
Other single-payer systems, for example, also provide complementary or supplementary private options.[1] And since these private options have to compete with a baseline of quality public care, they may be more affordable.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-tier_healthcare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-tier_healthcare
- inopinatus 9y ago> And since these private options have to compete with a baseline of quality public care, they may be more affordable. In such a hybrid system the public hospitals also experience competitive pressures. I can confirm pretty much first-hand[1] that this is why pathology turn-around times in a major metropolitan Australian public health service are measured in hours, whilst in the UK they are measured in weeks. [1] I am married to the medical director of this service.