A US National Health Care System? Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System?

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Road Walker who wrote (1847)	8/13/2007 5:17:05 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) of 42652

Not even close. The private sector pays a lot more to those on top in terms of skills, or managing very large organizations. But for less skilled employees it frequently pays less in terms of total compensation. The processing of forms would either be highly automated (in which case labor costs aren't the main ongoing cost) or it would be done by people with moderate levels of skills and education. Which isn't to say I think the opposite of your idea is a safe assumption either. Other than how much someone gets paid you have economies of scale from the government (or any theoretical non-government "single payer") vs. competition and profit seeking driving cost reduction in the private sector. More often than not the latter is more likely to control costs, but private insurance companies may be lagging the private sector as a whole in efficiency gains, and cost containment, also to the extent the system is automated, there is probably a fairly good opportunity for economies of scale. Moving from looking at the issue in theory to actual analysis of the costs the costs look pretty similar. Message 23773812 But then as you have pointed out before there is also additional cost to the practitioners from the time they (or to a greater extent the people they hire) spend dealing with multiple types of insurance. Maybe paperwork efficiency in doctors offices, hospitals etc., from having only one payer to deal with, would be a way to reduce costs. OTOH the argument that this we be a source of major savings (savings anywhere close to the difference in costs per patient in the US and other countries) strains credibility. Also to the extent that you allow private sector coverage for people who want more than a basic government package, you reduce the potential benefit.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next