2 ms·
Almost everyone benefits from universal coverage but the system has to incentivize patients to shop around for the optimal balance of price, quality, and conven
by grey-area 6y ago
Almost everyone benefits from universal coverage but the system has to incentivize patients to shop around for the optimal balance of price, quality, and convenience.
Universal coverage does not need to incentivise shopping around in a single payer system. Also, the majority of patients are not capable of evaluating quality of healthcare, nor should they be.
- aksss 6y agoAny system should incentivize shopping around unless it wants inflated cost. That or discourage frequent engagement (the US consumes comparatively massive amounts of healthcare product and service with inefficient outcomes). Our present system is _designed_ to prevent price comparison and shopping around via price opacity, network lock-in, state-level artificial supply barriers, etc. Universal coverage on par with Europe would mean we all start consuming less individually (which isn’t a big deal to outcomes but not part of our culture), or we need to have a far more competitive environment for suppliers. Either would be better than what we have today, whether insurance is public, private, or a mix of both.
- grey-area 6y agoI honestly don’t think price comparison can work for general healthcare, plus it would lead to huge disparities of care quality as the US has now, which means in practice a very expensive safety net for which the government picks up the tab. Better just to go with single payer healthcare, not linked to employment or insurance, and dramatically reduce costs with similar outcomes. Everyone wins, and those with money can still buy private care or private insurance if they wish, truly shopping around, as they have the means, education and leisure time to do so.