3 ms·

While were at it lets require health insurance be required to bill as a percentage of income.

arcticbull 8y ago
Or maybe, the state determines a fee schedule, each doctor is paid the same amount for each procedure completed by the state, then the state bills everyone as a percentage of their income, via taxes? And everyone's covered. And there's no pre-existing conditions. Or co-pays. Or deductibles. Or out of pocket maximums. If only there were examples to draw from ;)
- jeremyt 8y ago
  If only "pay for service" wasn't a recognized problem that we're currently trying to solve itself. It's almost as if when doctors are paid per procedure, they do a bunch of unnecessary procedures. The idea that healthcare can be centrally managed comes from people assuming it's way simpler than it is.
  - arcticbull 8y ago
    Here's a good place to start. You know that demand in the US for a transparent fee schedule so people know what things cost at hospitals? Here's the list of every service administered in Ontario and exactly how much it costs: http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/pro/programs/ohip/sob/ http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/pro/programs/ohip/sob/ Those are in Canadian dollars by the way; yes, a specialist consult costs the province $100 (and you, $0). It's hard to hear that you're trying to pre-solve cost problems you don't know you'll have if you were to switch to central management when the US is currently the most expensive healthcare system per capita by a lot (like, double), and is ranked 36th by the WHO. Far less expensive systems per capita are ranked dramatically higher even though they have a fixed fee schedule. Sure, there's room to improve, but maybe knock out the low-hanging fruit first. Further, if that's too distasteful, there's other ways to make this work; the Swiss system forbids private insurers from making profit on the basic administration of healthcare, and caps individuals out of pocket expenses. I'm sure the insurers would find a way under such constraints.
    - lozenge 8y ago
      The ACA also demands insurers pay 85% of revenue in health care costs and caps out of pocket expenses...
ericd 8y ago
Heh much of the citizenry of the US is a bit allergic to the idea of fully socialized medicine. We like options.
- int_19h 8y ago
  You can have a private insurance system on top of a tax-subsidized public one that provides a baseline. Or we could try a public option, for starters. I bet that would drive prices down significantly already, simply by virtue of being large enough to negotiate them down.

Or maybe, the state determines a fee schedule, each doctor is paid the same amount for each procedure completed by the state, then the state bills everyone as a percentage of their income, via taxes? And everyone's covered. And there's no pre-existing conditions. Or co-pays. Or deductibles. Or out of pocket maximums. If only there were examples to draw from ;)

jeremyt 8y ago
If only "pay for service" wasn't a recognized problem that we're currently trying to solve itself. It's almost as if when doctors are paid per procedure, they do a bunch of unnecessary procedures. The idea that healthcare can be centrally managed comes from people assuming it's way simpler than it is.
- arcticbull 8y ago
  Here's a good place to start. You know that demand in the US for a transparent fee schedule so people know what things cost at hospitals? Here's the list of every service administered in Ontario and exactly how much it costs: http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/pro/programs/ohip/sob/ http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/pro/programs/ohip/sob/ Those are in Canadian dollars by the way; yes, a specialist consult costs the province $100 (and you, $0). It's hard to hear that you're trying to pre-solve cost problems you don't know you'll have if you were to switch to central management when the US is currently the most expensive healthcare system per capita by a lot (like, double), and is ranked 36th by the WHO. Far less expensive systems per capita are ranked dramatically higher even though they have a fixed fee schedule. Sure, there's room to improve, but maybe knock out the low-hanging fruit first. Further, if that's too distasteful, there's other ways to make this work; the Swiss system forbids private insurers from making profit on the basic administration of healthcare, and caps individuals out of pocket expenses. I'm sure the insurers would find a way under such constraints.
  - lozenge 8y ago
    The ACA also demands insurers pay 85% of revenue in health care costs and caps out of pocket expenses...

ericd 8y ago

Heh much of the citizenry of the US is a bit allergic to the idea of fully socialized medicine. We like options.

int_19h 8y ago
You can have a private insurance system on top of a tax-subsidized public one that provides a baseline. Or we could try a public option, for starters. I bet that would drive prices down significantly already, simply by virtue of being large enough to negotiate them down.