No health insurance for you! | |||||||||||||||||
Health insurance should not be provided except for surgery or similar medical procedures. This creates two problems:1) Fees for basic services become "sticky",2) Creates a disincentive for doctors to improve services or efficiency What motive would a doctor have to provide better service, if his compensation was fixed. Similarly what motive would a doctor have to improve his internal processing (file and the like), if his compensation was fixed.
sath45, Aug 31 2007
What do you think of this idea or comment? | |||||||||||||||||
Users who liked this idea also liked: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Add your comment
You have an interesting idea there--I believe that as health insurers push the number of 'easy' things that they'll cover, like appointments and prescriptions, but get more picky about the expensive thing, they've pushed us toward socialized medicine, but with no one to turn-off the 'money valve.'
In capitalism, the customer decides the maximum amount of money spent. In socialism, the government. We seem content to let the insurance companies be the ones to decide this, to turn the 'money valve', but then we yell at them (and sue) when they deny anything, thus expanding the envelope of what's covered. Then our medical system gets to where it is 1/7th of the economy and hosiptals are the biggest buildings in town.
As an engineer, I gross about $280 a day. My insurance company plus my copay will pay that to a doctor for 20 minutes of his day. The money valve is wide open--there's no one controlling costs.
And most of the complaining you hear is to get More money into the system, not less. If we do go to socialized medicine, we have to cut the number of people in the pay-loop--there's no need for an insurance man at all. Or a lawyer.