We need to socialize the healthcare in the USA and put a stop to this crazy billing practices. (Maybe send a few execs to jail too) Canada really has the right idea here, as even if you are making $bank here, you can be fired for any reason/no reason and health insurance will end. IMO this is by design, as it is much more difficult to leave a job if insurance will end.
The concept of “socializing the health system” papers over the really important issues. Countries with universal healthcare don’t actually have a uniform system. They all have quite different systems. The Netherlands, for example has private insurance and private providers. The U.K. has no insurance and public providers (doctors work for the government). Other countries have various things in between. Single payer, like Canada has, isn’t even the most common system. Overlooking these distinctions means you may not fix the relevant problems. You can “socialize” insurance, but if you don’t impose controls on billing it’ll just be a different entity being overcharged.
The NHS is going to tell them to get bent, that they're paying the agreed upon price for the act and don't care about the rest of their bullshit, and if they're not happy with it they can close their office.
> Conversely, whatever rules prevent such billing practices in Canada could be applied in the US without socializing anything.
It's not "whatever rules". The NHS can negotiate prices and is interested in balancing keeping costs down with having providers.
Not only is this not a thing which can be "ruled", Congress (the GOP) has literally willed away the one lever the US Government has to do this: the Secretary of Health and Human Services is legally forbidden from negotiating prices on Part D prescription drugs.
And even then that'd only be for Medicare itself (though HR3 intends to not only reverse this but makes this negotiation a binding MSRP): the VA can and does negotiate drug prices, but that doesn't benefit people who are not under VA.
In a single payer system, the single payer in question has both incentive and leverage.
The Canadian system has socialized insurance plus price controls. But those are two separate things—you can have one without the other. The Swiss system, for example, has price schedules, but not “socialized” medicine.
As to drug pricing: you’re repeating FUD about Medicare. What should clue you in that this is FUD is that, for the most part, Medicare itself doesn’t cover prescription drugs. (Only drugs you get during a hospital visit.) Prescription drugs are covered by an optional program called Medicare Part D, which is provided through private insurance. So yes, the Secretary of DHHS isn’t permitted to negotiate prescription drug prices for Medicare. That’s because that’s the role of the Prescription Drug Plans under Part D. The private insurance plans that are offered under Part D do negotiate drug prices. See: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/IF11318.pdf
> Determination of Drug Prices in Medicare Part D To bolster market competition and limit the federal role, the MMA included a non-interference provision (Social Security Act (SSA) §1860D-11(i)), which states that in carrying out the requirements of the Part D program, “the Secretary: (1) may not interfere with the negotiations between drug manufacturers and pharmacies and PDP sponsors; and (2) may not require a particular formulary or institute a price structure for the reimbursement of covered part D drugs.”
> Part D sponsors, working with pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), negotiate prices with drug manufacturers and contract with pharmacies to dispense drugs to plan enrollees. Negotiated price concessions mainly take the form of rebates (after-sale reductions) from a manufacturer’s list price for brand-name drugs.
I assume it's similar in other provinces and therefore your premise is mostly wrong.
In no other profession can one murder a quarter million Americans annually(1) via chart reading apathy or gross incompetence at multiplying by 10, and not only keep one's job, but get paid for rendering the botched services, as well.
Imagine being a plumber who gets paid after making your customers' leaks ten times worse. That's the life of every doctor in the US.
That sounds similar to indentured servitude.
EDIT: I misread the “here” as “Canada”. The US healthcare system has caused me some personal hardships, so I was surprised Canada had something similar. Luckily it’s more sensible.
Also as someone who has switched jobs in the last year setting up new insurance/dentist/optometrist multiple times is a absolute waste of my time and would be entirely eliminated if we stopped tying insurance to the employer.
We already have massive shortages of doctors (and nurses, I think). This will only make it worse.
There's no shortages of doctors, or nurses in major cities.
https://www.google.com/search?q=doctor+shortages+usa+appalac... provides a bunch of links if you want to dive into this topic further.
I would, no kidding, love to see any example of a successful, modern healthcare system that doesn't employ price controls to keep costs from getting out of hand. Allowing "successful" and "modern" to describe the system in the US, it's the only one I know of that doesn't.
I'm not advocating for anything; it wasn't my comment. I just couldn't be sure what the poster was referring to, as the original comment was convoluted.
It (the US version) is not a good thing, correct.
Canada does not have such a system. Canada has taxpayer-funded healthcare. Therefore you have the liberty to quit your job and find more favourable employment without having to deal with the risk of one surprise hospitalization from bankrupting you.
GP is saying Canada did that right. The confusion arises because GP said "here" right after praising Canada, possibly misleading you to think they were referring again to Canada, which they were not.