You assumed the 28 million uninsured in this country “chose” to refuse coverage. I pointed out that this assumption is wrong.
Yes, and I granted that point.
So, assuming everyone can get coverage, the 1% of all medical procedures that happen to be actual emergencies are no big deal, because everyone, in your mythical world is covered, so their exposure in those situations is. Just a few hundred bucks. BFD.
And not only is that not true for an unacceptable number of people, but it is also callous, because “a few hundred bucks” might as well be the cost of a car to those 47.5% of people who hover near the poverty line.
I wrote what I wrote assuming the implementation of a universal care system where everyone *at least* has some sort of coverage; think of it as a high deductable HSA, if you wish. In that situation, the fact that 1% get into an emergency situation where they can’t shop prices in that situation alone is not of major concern.
For most people in the US, the system I advocate would essentially be single payer. And that majority of Americans who are covered by this socialized care would be a large enough block of consumers to give the government enormous leverage to control the costs that both of us agree are too high.
The flaw I see here is that the government can’t control the costs of private enterprises. The government gets *some* cost control over private health care enterprises by limiting reimbursements, but as I’ve already pointed out, that “control” is limited by the underlying cost of care, which is what my primary concern is, and the reason why I’ve repeatedly said “Go ahead, rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic all you like. No cost control, your plan will fail.” Doctors and nurses are not slaves, after all. They need to earn a living, and all that equipment and technology they use is not free.
So, you have a choice. You can either go *completely socialized* like the NHS, where the government owns it all, and all health care workers work for the government, and thus force cost control (which I should add is extremely un-American) OR you can financially incent patients, providers, and suppliers to control costs in their own. That’s the camp I live in. (Changing patent laws for pharmaceuticals wouldn’t hurt, either).
Add this to the ability to cost compare by publishing all hospital charge masters by law, and we have two powerful sources of cost controls that could surely bring costs down to become in line with the rest of the industrialized world.
That is an essential element to any market-based solution.
Sure, private insurance and concierge care could still be available to the few who can afford such luxuries, but everyone else would still be able to access public care.
Well, a cottage industry would quickly spring up for insurance plans which close the gaps in whatever anyone comes up with.
The problem you have with this seems to be calling it socialized healthcare. You, not me, seem to have a very binary view of that term. It is either completely social, or it isn’t socialist. Any assumptions I’ve made about your intended system is based on this very narrow definition you’ve insisted on clinging to.
Well, the actual definition of socialISM *is* very binary. The only truly “socialist” system in the world is the UK’s, I believe. If doctors and hospitals are *not* employees/owned by the government, then the goernment doesn’t own nor control the means of production.
SocialIST health care is different from socialIZED health care.