3 of which are possible for a lower cost in a single payer system. In a single payer system everyone has insurance and all providers accept that insurance which makes coverage and access to providers more attainable. Better access to pediatricians and birth control counseling can lower teen pregnancy rates. In the US the states with abstinence only sex ed programs or, even worse, no sex ed programs have the highest rates of teen pregnancy. Teens when educated on the proper use of contraceptives and family planning are able to significantly reduce teen pregnancy rates across socioeconomic strata.
Infant mortality, substance abuse and untreated mental health diseases are much more prevalent among the working poor in the US. Those that cannot afford commercial health insurance or can't afford to use it in our current system.
Instead of asking who should pay for the $300+ bag of salt water, we should ask why any hospital is able to charge $300+ for a bag of salt water that cost them $1. They do it to cover the costs of providing health care services to the uninsured or under-insured. If everyone is ensured with one insurance company, they again have greater collective bargaining and we could even start to change the profit incentive for our healthcare system as a whole.
Right now we reward more tests and procedures not better outcomes. If physicians were instead graded on markers of healthy life expectancy, instead of how many prescriptions they write out and how many blood draws they order, maybe we could get some bang for our buck.
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
But America doesn't WANT that. They WANT "those people" to suffer or figure it out themselves. It really isn't about what's better. I mean, you always have trade-offs. For profit system means faster services (usually). But some are excluded. Single payer means everyone gets health care but it's usually slower because they can't afford literally everyone to have great care at quick times.
And in America, a New Yorker would rather have care himself and NOT pay for some guy in Texas whose probably a Republican anyway.
And in Texas, those ranchers don't want their hard earned money going to free loading liberals in California who are just mooching anyway.
And we do not reward more tests and procedures. We reward less tests and procedures and more paperwork. Insurance companies want just enough tests to say "Yes, this is what's wrong, we don't have to pay for anything else" but not so many that they pay more than they need to. It's a balancing game with paperwork at the focal point. Justify why you need this test and we'll pay for it.... eventually. Probably.
Show Posts
