A free market healthcare system assumes people would be getting back at least 7.5% of their salary every year, if not more.
A free market healthcare system assumes people would be getting back at least 7.5% of their salary every year, if not more. That doesn't work for various reasons: - People will spend the money and won't have enough savings to save their medical bill. - There is an economic crisis and people use their savings for covering their mortgage payments. - Most importantly: for some people the medical bills will be higher than they could set aside at that point in their life or at all in the case of a chronic condition or e.g. a form of cancer that is very expensive to treat. There is literally a quota of, say pacemakers, for example, that can be purchased in Germany every year. Germany apparently has quota, but they are budgeting and adjusted to the need. Again, I know of no cases in my wider circle of family, friends, and acquaintances where they could not get some important medical condition treated and with nearly full coverage of insurance. In the nineties, we had inefficiencies in The Netherlands that sometimes resulted in long waiting lists. These issues have been resolved at the beginning of the century... Through government interference. You might also want to check on research, which shows time and again that countries with universal insurance outperform the US, both on quality and cost per citizen. E.g.: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/files/publications/f... There is a frequent misperception that trade-offs between universal coverage and timely access to specialized services are inevitable; however, the Netherlands, U.K., and Germany provide universal coverage with low out-of-pocket costs while maintaining quick access to specialty services.
Posted by microtonal on Sep 21, 2014, 8:23 AM
Tags
Related issues
- I love Americans making arguments against things like paper ballots or health care on the basis of "it's too expensive for such a large c...
- People hate it when faceless bureaucrats decide that some health care expense is too expensive for the large faceless bureaucracy to cove...
- > I will never understand why people think ACA was so great.
- Turning oneself in doesn't absolve one of a crime.
- All that we know is that the doctor carefully guided the patient out of the intervention, flashing a value that nobody had introduced bef...
- > Is that what we want?
Raise real-world problems, find people facing the same issue, and discuss solutions.9,000 issues0 comments
pricing (Healthcare)
I love Americans making arguments against things like paper ballots or health care on the basis of "it's too expensive for such a large c...
People hate it when faceless bureaucrats decide that some health care expense is too expensive for the large faceless bureaucracy to cove...
> I will never understand why people think ACA was so great.
Turning oneself in doesn't absolve one of a crime.
All that we know is that the doctor carefully guided the patient out of the intervention, flashing a value that nobody had introduced bef...
> Is that what we want?
If we're gonna stick with private insurance in the US, we should detach it from employment.
>Putting the entire population on vitamin D supplements would be too expensive for the country’s national health service, he told me.
A free market healthcare system assumes people would be getting back at least 7.5% of their salary every year, if not more.
A free market healthcare system assumes people would be getting back at least 7.5% of their salary every year, if not more. That doesn't work for various reasons: - People will spend the money and won't have enough savings to save their medical bill. - There is an economic crisis and people use their savings for covering their mortgage payments. - Most importantly: for some people the medical bills will be higher than they could set aside at that point in their life or at all in the case of a chronic condition or e.g. a form of cancer that is very expensive to treat. There is literally a quota of, say pacemakers, for example, that can be purchased in Germany every year. Germany apparently has quota, but they are budgeting and adjusted to the need. Again, I know of no cases in my wider circle of family, friends, and acquaintances where they could not get some important medical condition treated and with nearly full coverage of insurance. In the nineties, we had inefficiencies in The Netherlands that sometimes resulted in long waiting lists. These issues have been resolved at the beginning of the century... Through government interference. You might also want to check on research, which shows time and again that countries with universal insurance outperform the US, both on quality and cost per citizen. E.g.: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/files/publications/f... There is a frequent misperception that trade-offs between universal coverage and timely access to specialized services are inevitable; however, the Netherlands, U.K., and Germany provide universal coverage with low out-of-pocket costs while maintaining quick access to specialty services.
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Start the discussion.