3 ms·

> It does suck that the burden of the payment falls on the patients Who should the burden of payment fall on it not the patient seeking care? A huge majority

> It does suck that the burden of the payment falls on the patients Who should the burden of payment fall on it not the patient seeking care? A huge majority of Americans do at least have some level of insurance coverage with a max out of pocket which helps, and our Healthcare system is horribly designed with regards to keeping costs low, but really where else should they send the bill?

ehnto 3y ago
It's more complex in the US, but idealy they could send the majority of the bill to a government, since you pay them taxes to provide essential services. The abnormally high costs of medical services in the US stem from more issues than just the lack of universal healthcare though, and I have no idea how to solve that problem.
- flagrant_taco 3y ago
  Sending the bill to the government just means that we all pay it through taxes or we all lose when the government prints more cash to cover deficit spending. The cost didn't just disappear because it's charged to the government rather than the patient. There are at least a few easy changes that could help bring down costs, but they wouldn't be popular. Rolling back much of the legal precedent for malpractice lawsuits would definitely help. Doctors need to be given the freedom to do what they do best, problem solve and treat each patient individually rather than cover their own ass.
  - adgjlsfhk1 3y ago
    roughly 30% of the cost of healthcare is insurance company and hospital staff arguing about who should pay for stuff. another decent chunk (that isn't typically reported) is the cost of judges and lawyers to administer bankruptcy proceedings. getting rid of all the beurocracy would absolutely bring costs down. in fact, one of the hardest parts of single payer healthcare is that moving there quickly would likely cause a recession due to the ~5% of the population that would be laid off
  - ehnto 3y ago
    > Sending the bill to the government just means that we all pay it through taxes Yes that is not a surprising caveat, that is the point. It's fairer to everyone, in my opinion, and in practice in many countries. I understand it's not that simple in the US but the concept of spreading the cost across everyone's taxes is the same. That is what insurance is afterall, and people seem to be fine with that.
ahi 3y ago
What bill? Our government already spends more per capita than the OECD median

ehnto 3y ago

It's more complex in the US, but idealy they could send the majority of the bill to a government, since you pay them taxes to provide essential services. The abnormally high costs of medical services in the US stem from more issues than just the lack of universal healthcare though, and I have no idea how to solve that problem.

flagrant_taco 3y ago
Sending the bill to the government just means that we all pay it through taxes or we all lose when the government prints more cash to cover deficit spending. The cost didn't just disappear because it's charged to the government rather than the patient. There are at least a few easy changes that could help bring down costs, but they wouldn't be popular. Rolling back much of the legal precedent for malpractice lawsuits would definitely help. Doctors need to be given the freedom to do what they do best, problem solve and treat each patient individually rather than cover their own ass.
- adgjlsfhk1 3y ago
  roughly 30% of the cost of healthcare is insurance company and hospital staff arguing about who should pay for stuff. another decent chunk (that isn't typically reported) is the cost of judges and lawyers to administer bankruptcy proceedings. getting rid of all the beurocracy would absolutely bring costs down. in fact, one of the hardest parts of single payer healthcare is that moving there quickly would likely cause a recession due to the ~5% of the population that would be laid off
- ehnto 3y ago
  > Sending the bill to the government just means that we all pay it through taxes Yes that is not a surprising caveat, that is the point. It's fairer to everyone, in my opinion, and in practice in many countries. I understand it's not that simple in the US but the concept of spreading the cost across everyone's taxes is the same. That is what insurance is afterall, and people seem to be fine with that.

ahi 3y ago

What bill? Our government already spends more per capita than the OECD median