Quote:
Originally Posted by whell
Again - pretty wide question.
Product - overall, very good. Opportunities for improvement / efficiency can be found that do not negatively impact quality of care.
Delivery - hit and miss, cumbersome, over-regulated
Access - could be improved. Impacted by delivery.
Cost - out of control, over - regulated. The value proposition is fair, but the potential for erosion is increasing.
Regulatory enviroment - a mess. A hodge-podge of local, state and federal regulations that add costs and decrease efficiencies at every level.
Funding - a mess. Federal and state mandates and programs skew the costs and for all participants in the system. Group insurance creates a cost structure that tends to favor the largest groups, or groups that are most favorable (healthy) from an underwriting perspective. Tax treatment for health care premiums creates advantages for some and disadvantages for others, irrespective of income.
|
Those are very cogent argument in favor of single-payer, IMHO. With single payer, there would be no need for the regulation aspect that you hammer upon. I think the recent health care bill was little more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Here's a question: Is there any nation with a system such as ours that functions well. I would have to say that the response is a double negative (no such system and if there was it would be as hosed as ours).