4 ms·
[citation needed] This is a common talking point that smells like an oversimplification.
by omegaworks 7y ago
[citation needed]
This is a common talking point that smells like an oversimplification.
- moate 7y agoI can't speak to Medicare/Medicade but the general idea is this: Doctors and the things they use/services they provide have a cost associated with them. Insurance works by spreading risk. Guy who breaks his wrist essentially takes money from the pool that wasn't used by the guy who hasn't been to a hospital in 6 years. So far everything is fine. When you have people who exist outside that system of resource reallocation, the doctors have to find ways to ensure they're still getting enough money to cover their costs. One way they can do this is by suing patients who don't pay, but that takes time and more money and doesn't always work. Another option, would be that they then raise their rate to the insurance companies because they know that the insurance companies can afford it since they have such large pools of money. The insurance companies then raise the rates for everyone buying into the resource reallocation pool, and eventually everything spirals out into our current non-system. Is it more complicated than this: yes, but that's the elevator pitch on it.
- omegaworks 7y ago> they know that the insurance companies can afford it since they have such large pools of money This is exactly why Medicare for All is touted as a solution. It would create the largest pool. It would also reduce the significant overhead presently involved with billing N different insurance companies. Why isn't the conversation about those costs imposed by the current system?