-
ORIGINAL: Thor
Dr J: You conveniently leave out key problems. 1) Unlike the govt, insurance companies are for profit, they have as much incentive to deny excess procedures if not more the the govt. 2) Private insurance company’s goals are not the welfare of the individual per se, but the welfare of the corporation and its investors. 3) While they may employ fewer people to do the sam e sorts of jobs, all these companies have just as bad, if not worse built in complexity with back end denials that they already know that the provider will see as more expensive to fight than try to collect. 4) As currently run, health insurance companies have different rules and regulations such that you cannot simply switch to one from the other without running into crazy arcane rules that are completely opposite. Since health plans come and go it is not always possible to avoid these situations.
I am always stunned that physicians see change as the problem; the status quo is the problem; until we are able to come with a simpler common alternative and stop silly label scare tactics we will continue on this untenable path.
The profit is the motivation to do it for cheaper and better. The goverment will have just as much incentive to deny coverage when they run out of money (eventually we will no longer be able to borrow all this money) and face the rath of voters when they double the taxes. As to what is paid or not, there is oversight (a legitimate role for gov).
That said, I think we are headed to a 2 teir system regardless what happens. Those who don’t have much money will get the public system and those that do will get be able to afford the increased rate of insurance for private health care…just like education. I am not scared of change as long as it is a better system. Yet to see a proposal that fits that.