Are you suggesting routine visits not be covered? That’s how it reads… Do we think less (because it costs) basic preventative care and planning will lead to less catastrophic/etc issues? Or by not covering it are we expecting “competition” to lower the price?
Yes, that’s what I’m suggesting. Keep in mind that in most other countries where insurance has less of a role, these are vastly cheaper than they are here. I expect more people will ultimately go then, especially the uninsured, because prices would no longer be artificially inflated by bureaucracy and for the purposes of negotiation with insurance.
The hard problem, the way I see it, would be taking us from here to there with minimal suffering during such a transition.
We could also go the opposite direction towards single-payer healthcare. That also can be more efficient than what we have if politicians don’t sabotage it, but I am concerned that here, they will, and we’ll end up with something like the U.K. NHS. Therefore, for the U.S. specifically, I don’t see this as a good option due to instability.
What we have now is a compromise that works for nobody.
I get what you’re saying and completely agree the current situation works for no one, but covering routine care is important. Sure, people probably could pay for routine care directly and it would be cheaper but all too many won’t. When it turns into a serious problem that could have been prevented, it’s not just their health affected but cost to the insurer and employer.
I’m pretty sure that 100% coverage of routine care has been proven cheaper than letting the person decide
Are you suggesting routine visits not be covered? That’s how it reads… Do we think less (because it costs) basic preventative care and planning will lead to less catastrophic/etc issues? Or by not covering it are we expecting “competition” to lower the price?
Yes, that’s what I’m suggesting. Keep in mind that in most other countries where insurance has less of a role, these are vastly cheaper than they are here. I expect more people will ultimately go then, especially the uninsured, because prices would no longer be artificially inflated by bureaucracy and for the purposes of negotiation with insurance.
The hard problem, the way I see it, would be taking us from here to there with minimal suffering during such a transition.
We could also go the opposite direction towards single-payer healthcare. That also can be more efficient than what we have if politicians don’t sabotage it, but I am concerned that here, they will, and we’ll end up with something like the U.K. NHS. Therefore, for the U.S. specifically, I don’t see this as a good option due to instability.
What we have now is a compromise that works for nobody.
I get what you’re saying and completely agree the current situation works for no one, but covering routine care is important. Sure, people probably could pay for routine care directly and it would be cheaper but all too many won’t. When it turns into a serious problem that could have been prevented, it’s not just their health affected but cost to the insurer and employer.
I’m pretty sure that 100% coverage of routine care has been proven cheaper than letting the person decide