Quote:
Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
The problem is that the private payors could give a rat's ass about keeping people healthy in the long term, because they know that they're not going to end up taking care of them. Managed care only works if people stay in the system. If people move from payor to payor or from health system to health system, there's no incentive to the healthcare providers to keep the population healthy. You're only saving your competitor money that way.
|
Hence the attractions of a single-payor, no-opt-out system. It forces rational rationing (as opposed to economic rationing, which is basically what we have). Problem is, as GGG pointed out, a single payor has WAY too much power over pricing and ends up depressing innovation because innovators aren't inspired by potential huge profits. That said, most innovation in the US system is in ... well, elder care generally and end of life care specifically, because that's where the money is. Which means the innovation is of limited benefit to the rest of us, so I'm not sure how I'd weigh its loss.
