3 ms·
>People die because of the decisions made by insurance companies. And if we had single pay, wouldn't people still die but now there is someone else to blame?
by mlrtime 2y ago
>People die because of the decisions made by insurance companies.
And if we had single pay, wouldn't people still die but now there is someone else to blame? Meaning there is still a budget for care, it is not infinite. There will still be a group to decide what to accept and what not.
- vineyardmike 2y agoWell sure, theoretically budgets are limited. But (1) the entire "profit" of insurance companies, and other middle-men, today becomes extra cash in the budget. Which if OP is to be believed, would be upwards of a 25% increase - just from insurance companies. (2) A single-payer would have more negotiation power to actually drive down costs, because if the single-payer doesn't buy your goods, there is no market for you to sell to. (3) There is no expectation of out-of-pocket expenses, so no one was to worry about a massive bill after losing a family member. Also, a key difference with single-payer healthcare is (generally) the distribution and accountability of program. We'd dispense with "preexisting conditions" and "in/out of network" and provide this service to everyone. Every single person would be eligible, it'd truly be for the citizenry. Because of this, coverage becomes a legislative practice, and if coverage or care is not meeting expectations, it can be changed. (also, UnitedHealth profit margin was consistently > 20% pre-2024)