Good arguments. Also reminds us that the reference to the cost of the health care system needs to be separated out. One obvious separation is between what insurance companies cost us vs what actually really providing our health care costs.
Friday, January 19, 2018
The Pro-business Argument for Single-payer Healthcare | Harvard Political Review
The Pro-business Argument for Single-payer Healthcare | Harvard Political Review
Good arguments. Also reminds us that the reference to the cost of the health care system needs to be separated out. One obvious separation is between what insurance companies cost us vs what actually really providing our health care costs.
Good arguments. Also reminds us that the reference to the cost of the health care system needs to be separated out. One obvious separation is between what insurance companies cost us vs what actually really providing our health care costs.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
From Diane P: I was told the following:
We’d save at least 36% by cutting out the HMOs. HMOs report their administrative costs are 10%; they also report double digit profits. Some court cases in the U.S. have revealed that they jack up the price on health care by more than 20%. This implies that a minimum of 40 cents of each dollar is going to HMOs. When the state government administers direct payments to subsidized patients, it costs the state 4% to operate the payment system. Minnesota could save at least 36% if it eliminated HMOs from publicly-funded health care programs.
It needs to be pointed out that the article Craig Brooks cited makes a distinction between big and small business. There are different incentives for business regarding one-payer health care in America. Big business wins by continuing to let HMOs dictate health care policy; small businesses lose when HMOs control America’s health care chaos.
Post a Comment