Owner, Best Health And Car Insurance Rates - Instant Online Quotes, US
Single Payer national health insurance is when a single entity (typically the federal government) administers health insurance coverage for all persons. This type of system is fairly popular in other countries with mixed results.
Most persons agree that "single-payer" would not be the best idea for the United States, because of cost and provider availability.
EVP Operations, Meridian Benefits consulting, New York
Single Payer National Health is when there is a nationwide health coverage insurance that is managed and paid for by a single institution. Medicare is such a policy. It has a uniform coverage for all participants across the nation and is paid for by the federal government. There are good and bad elements to this type of coverage.
Good:
A guaranteed baseline of health coverage for all citizens in the country regardless of financial means and employment status. There would be no such thing as loosing your job and then loosing your coverage. Since nearly all people living in the country would be on the insurance nearly all doctors and hospitals would have to take it because there would be few patients willing to pay out of pocket for treatment.
No bankruptcies because you got sick. There are around 2 million bankruptcies in 2013 because of healthcare bills. This wouldn't happen because the risk and cost of healthcare is shared among the entire tax paying population.
Bad:
Single payer systems provide a lack of choice. There would be no competition for the best coverage or the best network of providers so it can potentially reduce opportunities for innovation and providers pushing for that competitive edge.
If someone wants anything more than baseline coverage, you would still have to "buy up". Much like seniors do with Medicare Advantage plans, so the national coverage would not solve all the problems.
Funding is limited by federal budgets and tax income. This means that providers would be reimbursed based on what the government can afford. This can lead to shortages, particularly in expensive treatments because the profit motive is not as well fueled.
Complexity is an issue. We all know haw bloated and complex government agencies are, just think if they try and care for 350 million patients and all of their health issues!
.JPG){kind=avatar}
Most persons agree that "single-payer" would not be the best idea for the United States, because of cost and provider availability.
Good:
A guaranteed baseline of health coverage for all citizens in the country regardless of financial means and employment status. There would be no such thing as loosing your job and then loosing your coverage. Since nearly all people living in the country would be on the insurance nearly all doctors and hospitals would have to take it because there would be few patients willing to pay out of pocket for treatment.
No bankruptcies because you got sick. There are around 2 million bankruptcies in 2013 because of healthcare bills. This wouldn't happen because the risk and cost of healthcare is shared among the entire tax paying population.
Bad:
Single payer systems provide a lack of choice. There would be no competition for the best coverage or the best network of providers so it can potentially reduce opportunities for innovation and providers pushing for that competitive edge.
If someone wants anything more than baseline coverage, you would still have to "buy up". Much like seniors do with Medicare Advantage plans, so the national coverage would not solve all the problems.
Funding is limited by federal budgets and tax income. This means that providers would be reimbursed based on what the government can afford. This can lead to shortages, particularly in expensive treatments because the profit motive is not as well fueled.
Complexity is an issue. We all know haw bloated and complex government agencies are, just think if they try and care for 350 million patients and all of their health issues!