Quote:
Originally Posted by retiredguy123
The only way to reduce health care costs is to require patients to pay a percentage of the cost every time they receive health care. That way they will shop around for lower cost providers and require providers to compete with each other. Insurance is fine, but if the coverage is 100 percent of the cost, there is no incentive for anyone to reduce the cost.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by retiredguy123
....But, it all boils down to whether or not you believe that competition brings down costs. I think that it does.
|
Competition CAN bring down costs in an 'honest' market—but it doesn't necessarily. For example, we knew a young couple up north who would have to spend $600/month EACH for what amounted to catastrophic coverage: $5,000 deductible EACH per year. Before having a nickel's worth of benefits, in a year they would have to spend $600/month x 12 = $7,200/year x 2 = $14,400 + $10,000 deductibles = $24,400/year! They checked every insurance company within their ZIP code, and their premiums were all within a dollar or two of each other. I would be more inclined to call this 'collusion' rather than 'competition'.... These folks moved to another first world country where the health care is excellent and the cost of it is less than one-tenth of what they would have to pay in the US!
The alternative? My wife was on a medication that required weekly blood testing. It was a stat test, meaning as soon as the blood was drawn, a courier had to transport it from the collection site to the processing lab. There they would determine results, generate paperwork for the physician and for the patient (by special permission), and deal with the insurance companies. The regular charge for this test in those days was $28; however, the insurance companies (plural) had negotiated with the lab to accept $2 (as in TWO DOLLARS) for performing this test. I asked how the lab can stay in business doing what was required for $2, and why call it a $28 test, that is, who pays $28?
Ready for the response? 'Only the uninsured pay $28. We have no choice but to accept the $2 from the insurance companies, or else we would get no business at all.'
No further comment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueash
....One could look at first world countries that require patients to pay a significant amount of the cost which in your thesis should be the ones where the total health care spending is relatively lower as requiring payment reduces use. And compare that to countries with say, government provided health care at no direct cost to the patient, which in your thesis would result in high costs....
|
We just looked at a first world country—the US—where that young couple with insurance had to spend $24,200 before receiving any benefits from their coverage. Keep in mind, though, that 'government provided health care at no direct cost to the patient' does NOT mean 'free'; it's paid for in taxes. Those who object to paying taxes are reminded that another post pointed out that Somalia spends the least in the world on health care, thus low (possibly no) taxes! Any takers?
Whether health or lifestyle or other factors or a combination, I still shake my head at having learnt that on average people in the UK live nearly two years longer than those in the US—while spending only about one-third per person of what is spent in the US on health care. Perhaps we can learn something?