What's the economic case for a proper, well-functioning, comprehensive national
health insurance program, because we are told what we have, is the best we can do,
because we can't quote-unquote afford more?
What's the economics here as you've encountered it, that makes the
alternative case? But we literally can't afford not to. Right now, health care
spending grows year over year massively, for a bunch of okay and not okay reasons,
right? Okay reasons include people living
longer with chronic conditions, therefore more expensive to treat. Great, great use
of money! Not okay reasons include the, I think, 750 billion dollars of annual
medical waste a year, which is high prices, overcharging, overspending, and
also just outright fraud. The result is that I uh medic, gross medical spending
right now is about 3.1 trillion dollars a year. In twenty twenty seven
it'll be four point five trillion dollars a year, if nothing changes. A
federal universal single-payer, which is basically one giant insurance company
that insures all people, regardless of income, sickness, ability to pay, whatever,
that guarantees full care for all people, has the ability to, through massive
buying power, or through legislation, basically keep spending flat. We can go,
we can go from three point one trillion to three point two trillion over the
next decade, as opposed to four point five trillion over the next decade. So we
can't afford not to. We're losing money by refusing to have any kind of
common-sense measures of a health care works. In other countries that have
either a single-payer model, or a multi payer model, like Germany, you've got
still a federal agency that basically sets prices, or sets price bans on for
for private or nonprofit insurers to use. We have nothing like that,
so there's massive upward inflation. I mean, you look at I think a Deloitte,
Deloitte Consulting is a consulting group, but really kind of I think, stuck
up in developing the idea of medical and hospital consulting over the past twenty
years. I think they invented a thirty four billion dollar revenue stream, just
from teaching hospitals how to up code things and how to how to build more
things more people, for example, the crazy idea that you can have one
anesthesiologist, or one neurosurgeon, have a bunch of surrogate,
like assistants, that perform surgery for them, but get to bill at the higher rate,
for the higher doctors. Even though you're getting surgery by a PA, you're
getting billed at the neurosurgeon, which of course is much more expensive. They
can have four of those people operating at the same time, that's four times the
revenue, things like that. Charging more for facility fees, charging more for
different kinds of drugs, letting doctors own their own MRI facilities, that they
then of course prefer into, so they get a profit, all these different kinds of ways
of nickel and diming at a massive scale a bunch of payers, like insurance
companies, who are too small to do anything about it.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét