🚀 go-pugleaf

Walter Bright (bright@nazgul.UUCP) wrote:
: 
: I'd be happy to hand over my health care to the government, if they first prove
: they can run a large program successfully, like our public school system. I
: propose we wait and see them fix something simple like our public schools before
: they tackle the complexities of health care.

The more I read the more I realize people just don't understand how a
single-payer health care system works.  It has nothing to do with having
the government "responsible" for health care.  It only has to do with
how the bills are paid.

Yes, I know the government doesn't know how to do that but look at
the alternative.  Right now there are thousands of insurance companies
in the business of providing health care insurance.  They are all in
the game to make a profit.  Their business expenses are those of
processing claims plus marketing -- convincing the consumer that they
are better than the next plan.

Add to these overhead costs the fact that each health care provider
(doctors, dentists, hospitals, etc) have to deal with thousands of
different claim forms and procedures.  Thus, doctor's offices spend
more time dealing with claims that in patient contact time.

Add up the two costs above and you get numbers around 25% of the
cost of "health care".  In other words, for every $1 you spend in
health care, $.25 goes to processing paperwork that has nothing to
do with the actual care; just the bill.

Compare this to Canada.  Each province has one "insurance provider" which
is the provincial government.  Thus, there are no insurance company profits
and there is only one claim form.  The processing cost of these claims
is around 3% (vs the 25% in the U.S.).

Additional savings come in the form of one "insurance company"
negotiating with the providers on rates.  It must work as Canadian
doctors get paid less than U.S. doctors.

Now, does this confilct with free enterprise?  No.  Canadian doctors
are paid fee for service, just like in the U.S.  They pick what they do,
patients can select their own doctors and they can pick how much they
want to work.  The only limit is that they can only charge the fees
they agree to for a particular procedure.

The major saving is in elimination of th 25% overhead for someone who
has no interest in your health.  They are strictly a middleman.

Are there waiting queues in Canada for service?  Yes.  Why?  Because
there is a fixed budget.  But that budget is substantially lower per
person than in the U.S.  Thus, the queues could be shortened or eliminiated
(not necessarily a good idea) and the cost would still be less than in
the U.S.

I suggest that rather than bitch about single-payer that you offer
an alternative.  Personally I can't see a better answer than pretty much
what is is Canada.  If you can, fine, present it.  But I am reasonably
sure that offering any solution that includes a parasite that eats up
about 25% of all the money is going to be better or cheaper.

Let me also point out that I didn't understand the Canadian plan until
I attended a talk presented last May.  At that time, a doctor, a politician,
a health care union leader and a ex-Canadian ex-politician that is now
working in the U.S. talked about it.  They all had criticism of it but
they also all agreed that they would not trade their plan for what we
have in the U.S.  If you want to hear what they had to say about it
there is an audio tape available from FYL, 8315 Lake City Way NE, Suite
207, Seattle, WA 98115 for $5 postpaid.  There is also an article about the
talk (which I wrote) in a back issue of Washington Green.


-- 
Phil Hughes, SSC, Inc. P.O. Box 55549, Seattle, WA 98155  (206)FOR-UNIX
>>> Publishers of pocket references for UNIX, C, VI, Emacs, Ksh, MS-DOS, ... <<<
     ...!ssc!fyl or fyl@ssc.com            (206)527-3385