Health insurers just published close to a trillion hospital prices

Post by thewebcount » Wed, Sep 07, 2022, 4:31 AM UTC

narrator wrote: post #85

mskar wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's very expensive, carriers have an economic incentive to simplify it and this is still where they end up. There are a long tail of provider circumstances that the single-payer model will need to figure out. Some examples: * Small hospitals in low-density, underserved areas have to make up for underutilized equipment and personnel costs. They raise prices on unrelated, common procedures to break even (This is very…

What do you think about how Kaiser has handled the whole thing? The insurance company employing the doctors and just paying them a standard salary seems to create all the right incentives.

Post by cuteboy19 » Wed, Sep 07, 2022, 4:39 AM UTC

seandoe wrote: post #307

chii wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But looking from another perspective - if healthcare is 20% of GDP, an awful amount of people are therefore paid directly due to this "waste". Any improvement in efficiency would mean those people lose out on jobs. A new use for them must be found, or there will be massive unemployment (at least, short-medium term).

Not sure why you're getting down voted so bad. It's a valid point. I recognize that there is waste and inefficiency in the system, but I can guarantee that any effort to "streamline" or cut "waste" will inevitably hurt everyday people... Even outside of job cuts.

Post by adgjlsfhk1 » Wed, Sep 07, 2022, 4:43 AM UTC

antasvara wrote: post #306

multiplegeorges wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much of the current failures are due to conservative provincial governments (looking at you, Ontario...) purposely underfunding before and into the pandemic. We are now reaping what they have sown. This is a classic "underfund to prove the system doesn't work thus we must privatize it!" move.

How much do you estimate this is being underfunded, and do you believe proper funding for healthcare would push the percentage of GDP closer to the US number?

Post by himinlomax » Wed, Sep 07, 2022, 4:54 AM UTC

stevage wrote: post #241

bhupy wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just Switzerland and France; the Netherlands also has a private-only health insurance system. It's also very difficult to draw decisive conclusions since, across countries, there are hundreds of confounding variables — it's not just public vs private, but it's also which regulations exist in each country, whether it's employer-sponsored vs individual, general willingness to pay, etc. You're correct that Swit…

When I worked in France, I had health insurance through my employer. I never really understood what it was, and fortunately never needed to use it.

Post by californical » Wed, Sep 07, 2022, 5:04 AM UTC

pessimizer wrote: post #125

e_i_pi_2 wrote: post #80

My current assumption is that private healthcare/insurance is to blame, because countries without that or with less generally have better outcomes at less cost. Looking for evidence to the contrary

> countries without that or with less generally have better outcomes at less cost. This isn't necessarily a great metric, because almost all countries have better outcomes and all countries have lower per capita cost, whether their systems are public, private, or mixed. The US spends more public funds on healthcare than countries with universal socialized health care systems. The fact that we're also personally bankr…