4 ms·
One major difference is that most people, at some financial burden, can choose to change insurance providers whereas in many countries with universal systems (s
by vinay427 3y ago
One major difference is that most people, at some financial burden, can choose to change insurance providers whereas in many countries with universal systems (single-payer or otherwise) the government guidelines for what the national service or insurance providers must pay for or not tends to be more consistent across the board.
For instance, this is a struggle for people in many European countries who would benefit from access to specific psychiatric prescriptions which are either not prescribed except after trying various cheaper options or are not even approved because of the potential cost to the government, while the same drug is often available in the US (ranging from $10-hundreds a month, as is typical in the US). Public healthcare in at least California sounds more comparable to the universal single-payer systems I’ve seen in its relative inflexibility.
- Projectiboga 3y agoNo system would be perfect, but by cutting out most of the administrative overhead more gets to be spent on actual care. And by having everyone getting the same or similar coverage decisions it could easier to sort out. Also another benefit of single payer is that all or at least most out outcomes can be collected and compared to the treatments. This should enable improved outcomes and cut through the B$ we have here where 70,000 people can die needless from Vioxx before it even got a review. https://www.jci.org/articles/view/38430#:~:text=Some%20consider%20the%20voluntary%20removal,loss%20of%20a%20valuable%20drug https://www.jci.org/articles/view/38430#:~:text=Some%20consi....