Quote:
Originally Posted by WallyWager
It's closer to having the ability to negotiate prices for drugs, medical equipment, etc. on a national scale, and having less of a bureaucracy and far fewer middlemen to pay out compared to our system. For example, we spend about five times as much per person on just administrative costs as they do in Canada.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/time.co...ts/%3famp=true
Besides, we deny care all the time over here. It wasn't until the ACA when a person could either be denied coverage for a procedure or even lose their insurance if an underlying pre-existing condition was "discovered".
And if a person is uninsured or underinsured, that makes it a lot more likely they would self-deny medical care because they simply cannot afford the extravagant price tag. |
Do you not view the government as 'middlemen'? Does the government not have 'administrative costs'? Are there not predetermined wage hikes via the GWU (where applicable) regardless of merit, increasing 'administrative costs' without additional production?
'Over here', if insurance denies coverage (which is just a method of payment), and all reviews have been exhausted, a person has an option. If they believe it is something they must have, then they can pay for it themselves, if they have the means to. There are also other countries that may offer the same service for less. Once the government is involved, that option goes away. We've seen the results of that in the UK.
The pre-existing condition clause was about the only worthwhile thing that came out of the ACA, but gone about so far wrong it would take the government or a committee to screw it up so completely. I estimate approximately two pages of legalese could have addressed that issue. I do not see it as an effective reason to maintain any pretense that the ACA was a 'good thing'.
Once again, let Medicare be expanded to those who want it, and leave the rest of us alone.