Ultimately, the thing that is needed, the thing that inhibits care, and the thing the government ought to provide is insurance. A single payer system is ultimately insurance. That is ultimately what every other developed nation has.
People can’t afford care when insurance denies the claim. Insurance is a publicly traded industry. Publicly traded companies are duty bound to maximize profit and minimize costs. The easiest way to do that is to deny claims.
If you think of it, the thing people are asking for is for the government to step in an pay the bill. They’re not asking for the government to provide the actual care. That could actually politicize care. Cancer? Congress won’t allow for doctors to treat beyond stage 2. Have a drug problem? That’s jail, not treatment. Transgender? Get fucked. With universal insurance, pick your doctor and the government pays the claim. Doctor patient privilege would still exist with universal insurance.
Medical care is the one area you can rack up a bill with no ability to say no, and doctors are ethically bound to provide the care anyway. In a comma? You can’t contract for medical care like you can with buying a car. You can rack up a ton of medical debt without even being awake to realize it.
Yeah, sorry, that wasn’t the right word. Maybe “cynical?”
If you think of it, the thing people are asking for is for the government to step in an pay the bill. They’re not asking for the government to provide the actual care.
I could be wrong, but I’m under the impression that care actually is provided by the government directly in a bunch of countries, and that those systems work just fine (or at least much better than our system does here in the US). Why does there even need to be a bill (in the sense of keeping track of costs on a per-patient basis) to begin with?
Your assertion that government-provided care isn’t even an option on the table is true, but that only goes to prove my point about us being terminally capitalism-pilled.
I could be wrong, but I’m under the impression that care actually is provided by the government directly in a bunch of countries, and that those systems work just fine (or at least much better than our system does here in the US).
Yes, but making “what care for which patient” fall under the government’s determination in the US’s system of government is a bad idea. Maybe if there was a slowing of the changeover after elections, but the US’s political situation is too bipolar to implement that level of government control of care (see my examples from above).
Why does there even need to be a bill (in the sense of keeping track of costs on a per-patient basis) to begin with?
Because doctors need to pay their student loans? Because IV fluids need to be clean and put in bags? Because no single patient’s care is standardizable? Maybe theres guidelines and standards of care, but biology is too messy for cookie-cutter care.
Why does there even need to be a bill (in the sense of keeping track of costs on a per-patient basis) to begin with?
Because doctors need to pay their student loans? Because IV fluids need to be clean and put in bags? Because no single patient’s care is standardizable? Maybe theres guidelines and standards of care, but biology is too messy for cookie-cutter care.
Paying the doctor a salary doesn’t require itemizing the costs by patient. All the government really needs to know is the total aggregate demand in order to employ the correct number of doctors, not which patient required what care.
It goes to show just how far down the fucking rabbit hole we are, that even sarcastic remarks like yours talk about “insurance” instead of “care.”
My remark wasn’t sarcastic.
Ultimately, the thing that is needed, the thing that inhibits care, and the thing the government ought to provide is insurance. A single payer system is ultimately insurance. That is ultimately what every other developed nation has.
People can’t afford care when insurance denies the claim. Insurance is a publicly traded industry. Publicly traded companies are duty bound to maximize profit and minimize costs. The easiest way to do that is to deny claims.
If you think of it, the thing people are asking for is for the government to step in an pay the bill. They’re not asking for the government to provide the actual care. That could actually politicize care. Cancer? Congress won’t allow for doctors to treat beyond stage 2. Have a drug problem? That’s jail, not treatment. Transgender? Get fucked. With universal insurance, pick your doctor and the government pays the claim. Doctor patient privilege would still exist with universal insurance.
Medical care is the one area you can rack up a bill with no ability to say no, and doctors are ethically bound to provide the care anyway. In a comma? You can’t contract for medical care like you can with buying a car. You can rack up a ton of medical debt without even being awake to realize it.
Yeah, sorry, that wasn’t the right word. Maybe “cynical?”
I could be wrong, but I’m under the impression that care actually is provided by the government directly in a bunch of countries, and that those systems work just fine (or at least much better than our system does here in the US). Why does there even need to be a bill (in the sense of keeping track of costs on a per-patient basis) to begin with?
Your assertion that government-provided care isn’t even an option on the table is true, but that only goes to prove my point about us being terminally capitalism-pilled.
Yes, but making “what care for which patient” fall under the government’s determination in the US’s system of government is a bad idea. Maybe if there was a slowing of the changeover after elections, but the US’s political situation is too bipolar to implement that level of government control of care (see my examples from above).
Because doctors need to pay their student loans? Because IV fluids need to be clean and put in bags? Because no single patient’s care is standardizable? Maybe theres guidelines and standards of care, but biology is too messy for cookie-cutter care.
Paying the doctor a salary doesn’t require itemizing the costs by patient. All the government really needs to know is the total aggregate demand in order to employ the correct number of doctors, not which patient required what care.