I'm saying that in this case this is currently true. As I pointed out, Medicare's overhead costs are significantly lower than those of for-profit insurance companies. In addition, a government system will not cherry-pick which people it handles and which it will not unlike for-profit, deny-care insurance companies.
Why are you chronically unable to decouple the salient points?
1) Medicare is a single entity, protected from competition.
2) Medicare is non-profit.
3) Medicare covers 100% of the population.
The above three are logically independent. Systems can be designed that mix and match any of the above or their opposites.
Single payer, multi-payer = non competition, or lots of competition.
non-profit or for-profit = different business style.
Mandatory population coverage, or selective coverage = dynamics of preexisting or not coverage.
Mix and match. But choose the best system. IMO, the best system is free market on the insurance providers, but REQUIRED coverage for all individuals. You MUST carry insurance, just like you must carry auto insurance if you drive. Then, it is a separate issue on how to assist poorer people in paying for their insurance. But don't conflate the issues!
Demand more from the for-profit system which is, frankly, lousy.
You get more from the for-profit system. Look at how many Docs don't take Medicare.
As a capitalist, why not demand that US physicians and hospitals charge competitive rates to their overseas counterparts. Why shouldn't heart surgery in the US be $20,000 instead of $100,000?
Partly because standards of living are different and quality is different. However, this is one of the means of reforming the US system: International competition. India, Asia, and South Africa are actively trying it.
Why does the health care system get a pass on being a quasi-monopoly and an inefficient low-quality one at that?
Excellent question, although it is not a quasi-monopoly. However, you won't like my answer. It is because the method of payment, via insurance, does nothing to promote cost control. The loop of individual pays a monthly premium, individual wants the best care (i.e. cheap = no good), doctor wants to give the best care, doctor bills insurance company, insurance company raises premiums, individual pays higher premium, has nothing that encourages the individual to demand more cost effective service. Given the system, why would you expect anything else?
Why rollover and play dead for a system that seeks to have low standards, high prices and monopolistic practices? Why?
I don't. What I do is carry a reasonable insurance policy, one with $1M coverage, but $5K deductible. Thus I have motivation to control cost at least for the first $5K, plus another $5K out of the first $20K, but if something is really wrong with me, I'm covered for the statistically unlikely. I also, don't smoke, I'm a vegetarian, I exercise, I'm slender, I'm sexually monogamous, don't use drugs, etc. Unfortunately, my insurance premiums are affected by people who, in general, are at substantially worse statistical risks. That part I can't control. In addition, I can't generally even get cost estimates from my medical providers. They have a cultural embarrassment of talking about money with regard to their services. This is a structural problem within the industry, and one which is far more important to alter than any of the things batted about by most people discussing the issues of health care. I'd like to start a state ballot initiative requiring written cost estimates for all medical treatments prior to service, just like some states have for auto repairs. That would do more for cost containment than most of the crap out of Washington. |
