So I’ll pay for the things I need and use, and let everyone else do the same.
I’ll ask a question: How much of your premium do you think goes towards profits, insurance-related bureaucracy (both on the company and hospital side) and other non-care insurance items? Hint: More than a quarter of a hospital’s employees are only there to handle insurance. Hint2: Some doctors—particularly in the field of mental health—find the whole thing so ridiculous that they straight up do not accept insurance.
I’m sadly aware of how ridiculous the insurance situation is. In our current legal (and legislative) environment, the fact that we don’t have firm tort limits is problematic. It means that doctors who might be accused of malpractice either will do so flagrantly, or refuse to act without massive barriers (provided, of course, by the insurance companies). There are a lot of things that need to change to upset it and I think any of them would be valuable.
Reduce the public financial aid availability - schools will lower their tuition costs and fees eventually, or they’ll find themselves with far less students. That way, doctors & lawyers don’t end up saddled with a lifetime’s worth of education debt (and side benefit - neither does anybody else).
Instate firm lifetime tort limits, so that a doctor (who’s already saddled with debt) doesn’t have to fear for his career with every patient. That will sharply lower insurance loss rates and payouts, which should impact premiums. Less fear for doctors, less work for lawyers, less work for actuaries.
Those two broad changes alone would fix a lot of issues.
If you do need some form of public insurance, don’t insure the patients. Everyone is a patient, supporting them might not pay back. Instead, set up a government funded malpractice insurance fund for all medical (dental/psych/etc) doctors. That encourages more people to become doctors, sets a de facto limit on the insurance plan and premium, and supports the skilled and educated people we actually want.
If I understand your position, it sounds like you’re hoping that the impacts of reduced benefits will somehow trickle down to the people who are currently most affected
There are a lot of things that need to change to upset it and I think any of them would be valuable.
You’re missing the point. Insurance adds fat that—even setting aside the economies of scale and negotiating power inherent in a government-funded system—overshadows the amount of money you’d save by forcing poor people to go without care, to say nothing of the knock-on effects of doing so (preventive care costs less than emergency care). All your talk of torts and malpractice overlooks the inherent problem of for-profit insurance being a pointless middleman that only makes money by denying people care. There are third world countries with better healthcare access than America because of this nonsense. I’d know; I live in one of them. Americans can sustain this system because they’re filthy rich, but it’s inherently wasteful and in a poorer country people would already be rioting.
Reduce the public financial aid availability - schools will lower their tuition costs and fees eventually, or they’ll find themselves with far less students.
Then even fewer students will be able to go to university. It’s basic supply and demand.
I’ll ask a question: How much of your premium do you think goes towards profits, insurance-related bureaucracy (both on the company and hospital side) and other non-care insurance items? Hint: More than a quarter of a hospital’s employees are only there to handle insurance. Hint2: Some doctors—particularly in the field of mental health—find the whole thing so ridiculous that they straight up do not accept insurance.
I’m sadly aware of how ridiculous the insurance situation is. In our current legal (and legislative) environment, the fact that we don’t have firm tort limits is problematic. It means that doctors who might be accused of malpractice either will do so flagrantly, or refuse to act without massive barriers (provided, of course, by the insurance companies). There are a lot of things that need to change to upset it and I think any of them would be valuable.
Reduce the public financial aid availability - schools will lower their tuition costs and fees eventually, or they’ll find themselves with far less students. That way, doctors & lawyers don’t end up saddled with a lifetime’s worth of education debt (and side benefit - neither does anybody else).
Instate firm lifetime tort limits, so that a doctor (who’s already saddled with debt) doesn’t have to fear for his career with every patient. That will sharply lower insurance loss rates and payouts, which should impact premiums. Less fear for doctors, less work for lawyers, less work for actuaries.
Those two broad changes alone would fix a lot of issues.
If you do need some form of public insurance, don’t insure the patients. Everyone is a patient, supporting them might not pay back. Instead, set up a government funded malpractice insurance fund for all medical (dental/psych/etc) doctors. That encourages more people to become doctors, sets a de facto limit on the insurance plan and premium, and supports the skilled and educated people we actually want.
If I understand your position, it sounds like you’re hoping that the impacts of reduced benefits will somehow trickle down to the people who are currently most affected
You’re missing the point. Insurance adds fat that—even setting aside the economies of scale and negotiating power inherent in a government-funded system—overshadows the amount of money you’d save by forcing poor people to go without care, to say nothing of the knock-on effects of doing so (preventive care costs less than emergency care). All your talk of torts and malpractice overlooks the inherent problem of for-profit insurance being a pointless middleman that only makes money by denying people care. There are third world countries with better healthcare access than America because of this nonsense. I’d know; I live in one of them. Americans can sustain this system because they’re filthy rich, but it’s inherently wasteful and in a poorer country people would already be rioting.
Then even fewer students will be able to go to university. It’s basic supply and demand.