7 ms·
Cost, Quality or Access. Whatever you get on one comes at the sacrifice of another. This is called the Iron Triangle of healthcare. Furthermore, you can have
by conanbatt 8y ago
Cost, Quality or Access. Whatever you get on one comes at the sacrifice of another.
This is called the Iron Triangle of healthcare.
Furthermore, you can have public insurance that charges co-pays, high-deductibles etc. Public Healthcare does not guarantee 'free healthcare', and if it did it would do so at cost of access (rationing) or quality (cost-effective care).
You can do that today with an HMO or a High-deductible plan if you wish.
There are many issues with healthcare in the us, but this is not a solution for them.
- mikeash 8y agoThis story is about life insurance, not health insurance. That Iron Triangle assumes that you have an efficient system. If you have a wasteful system (say, you pay twice as much per person as other places do without any advantage in quality or access) then you can reduce costs without hurting other things.
- erentz 8y agoYou seem to be thinking about something different wrt cost sharing and public healthcare. Cost sharing structure is a separate matter to risk pooling. Taken to its conclusion we should all be in risk pools of 1.
- ssivark 8y agoWhat about (at least partial) cost reduction due to decreased bureaucracy of collecting data and segmenting population demographics and customizing premiums?
- conanbatt 8y agoIf you expand a government program 10x fold, its bureaucracy costs will expand >10x fold. Medicare as it is today is already bigger than its national counterparts, and it still has great administrative costs. There are some benefits in government administration, but "efficiency" is not one of them.