Well, as long as you're just making stuff up, I don't see how I can possibly argue with you.
Actually, I do: "Paying the bill you get, after the fact" is not at all the same thing as "comparison shopping". So if you want to call that system price transparency, then all I can do is shrug and walk away.
I mean, go visit any Reddit thread discussing an American healthcare explanation of benefits bill. The Americans go "yup, it's expensive here"; the Europeans tend to go "I literally just paid $6 for parking for childbirth".
> Actually, I do: "Paying the bill you get, after the fact" is not at all the same thing as "comparison shopping".
If I get a bill for $300 for a pediatrician appointment, I know what the next one is likely to cost, yes?
Again, people on high-deductible plans know very intimately how much everything is costing them.
No. The next one could be more, it could be less. There could be other fees. You have no idea, because there is no price transparency.
You obviously know this is true, or you wouldn't have used the words "likely to cost". You're just arguing to argue.
Americans know intimately that doctors visits are going to hit them in the pocketbook. Far more than someone from a single-payer system does, where there's a good chance they will never receive a bill with a dollar amount on it.
Yet, we're the big outlier on medical costs. Knowing "this is gonna cost me, ooof" does not seem to have any impact on the costliness of the system.
Go to the grocery store. There are no prices posted, you just take your cart to the register, and the cashier charges you $20, then sends you a bill in the mail for a random amount -- trust us, we'll figure it out! Oh, that can of tomatoes really was $50. Sorry. At least you know for next time, right? (Unless the price changes.)
Do you see the problem now? Would you really call this system price transparency?