|
|
|
|
|
|
by bko
1763 days ago
|
|
|
>> Since no one said that, I don't know what you are talking about. > The US wastes $150,000,000,000 a year (the most per capita in the world) in pushing paperwork directly because of our “competing” individual insurance provider model When you have real competition and the final user pays, as opposed to a third party, you'll naturally have a model in which people pay for outcome as opposed to fee for service. If I take my car to be repaired, I just want the mechanic to fix it at the lowest cost possible. I don't care how many services they have to run. It works in every other aspect of our economy, including safety critical sectors. For instance, I may pay for a safer car as opposed to a cheaper less safe car. I just want a system in which I can make my own decisions regarding my health. I don't know why people argue that the US has a free market in health care. It does not, as you have plainly stated. There's a lot of intermediaries and parties involved that are highly regulated and influenced by the state. US spends as much in public spending in health care as other countries. I would prefer to remove the complexity, allow actual competition and remove third party payer as much as possible. Your solution sounds like more of the same but better, which doesn't make sense |
|
|
Your solution: a free market where you as the consumer can make your own health choices, of which you are not qualified to understand unless you went to medical school, and expect to pay the lowest cost for things you may need to prevent your own death (we all know price gouging in life or death situations is never a thing). Good luck with that.
Just so you know, unlike your car, you can’t just go buy a new life when you can’t afford to put in a new transmission.