4 ms·

Think professions where reimbursement is controlled by an outside entity like insurance or Medicaid. Even with supply and demand you can’t pay more than those w

Think professions where reimbursement is controlled by an outside entity like insurance or Medicaid. Even with supply and demand you can’t pay more than those will make possible. Additionally, in many cases you’ll end up with people working and providing services before finding out that they won’t be paid for it. That’s just off the cuff though.

ComputerGuru 9y ago
That only applies to companies accepting only (or virtually only) government health insurance, of which there are either few or none. In reality, it’s part of the reason treatment is so expensive. They charge private entities a lot more to make up for the government mandated rates. The law is that you can’t charge the government more than anyone else. And this is after we swore we would never let another Rwanda or another Serbia happen. Actually, this raises a very interesting point to parallel the author’s. By the same logic, a pacifist society must be willing to go to war to protect that pacifism.
- pjc50 9y ago
  > And this is after we swore we would never let another Rwanda or another Serbia happen. What on earth does this have to do with health insurance?
  - ComputerGuru 9y ago
    I’m sorry, I was editing another reply in a tab on my iPhone and something went wrong.
- DanBC 9y ago
  US healthcare spending is almost equally split between government and private insurance. US government spends more per capita on healthcare than eg UK government, and doesn't have universal coverage and has worse results across a range of indicators. https://visual.ons.gov.uk/how-does-uk-healthcare-spending-compare-internationally/ https://visual.ons.gov.uk/how-does-uk-healthcare-spending-co... US tax-payers are subsidising the US's terrible healthcare.
  - CryptoPunk 9y ago
    The US has the best cancer and heart disease survival rates in the world. But spending levels are still not commensurate with indicators. One possible explanation is that a lot of money is spent on healthcare toward the end of life, and much of it is just chasing a sliver of hope. In a system where people spend according to their priorities, instead of to improve some statistical indicator of system-wide efficacy, 'irrational' spending like this could be much higher in the US.

ComputerGuru 9y ago

That only applies to companies accepting only (or virtually only) government health insurance, of which there are either few or none. In reality, it’s part of the reason treatment is so expensive. They charge private entities a lot more to make up for the government mandated rates. The law is that you can’t charge the government more than anyone else. And this is after we swore we would never let another Rwanda or another Serbia happen. Actually, this raises a very interesting point to parallel the author’s. By the same logic, a pacifist society must be willing to go to war to protect that pacifism.

pjc50 9y ago
> And this is after we swore we would never let another Rwanda or another Serbia happen. What on earth does this have to do with health insurance?
- ComputerGuru 9y ago
  I’m sorry, I was editing another reply in a tab on my iPhone and something went wrong.
DanBC 9y ago
US healthcare spending is almost equally split between government and private insurance. US government spends more per capita on healthcare than eg UK government, and doesn't have universal coverage and has worse results across a range of indicators. https://visual.ons.gov.uk/how-does-uk-healthcare-spending-compare-internationally/ https://visual.ons.gov.uk/how-does-uk-healthcare-spending-co... US tax-payers are subsidising the US's terrible healthcare.
- CryptoPunk 9y ago
  The US has the best cancer and heart disease survival rates in the world. But spending levels are still not commensurate with indicators. One possible explanation is that a lot of money is spent on healthcare toward the end of life, and much of it is just chasing a sliver of hope. In a system where people spend according to their priorities, instead of to improve some statistical indicator of system-wide efficacy, 'irrational' spending like this could be much higher in the US.