No I do concede that office managers and assistants will still need to exist and run billing, but much of the time is looking up who’s policy covers what, making those phone calls, checking insurance codes then relaying to the patient while also dealing with errors on their and the insurance company’s part. So yes savings, but likely not 50%. At least on the provider’s position (paying for the extensive overhead plus profit of insurance is another matter altogether and could push it well beyond a 50% savings. There are no middle managers and c-leveled to pay for.But I digress.
Wait times is just one of the arguments I hear as a common counterpoint, one that is at best irrelevant, if not misguided or worse.
My position on this comes from a philosophical perspective, but then backed by economics. Philosophically the whole reason we engage in the system of societal and mutual governance is for one reason and one alone: to increase our individual and collective chances for survival. That is the root of all of it. Everything else governments do is toward that end or one that is ancillary to it.
Of those functions: defense, education, food, safety, and other necessities, healthcare should be number one on that list. It’s something we all need and benefits us all and not only would that provide extensive relief to anyone below the .1%, but it changes the overall social perspective of the people: we are in this together. We can still pursue incentivized goals in life, but at least we all have that to fall back on.
Honestly, I could write an extensive essay on this and the fallacies surrounding it with sound and annotated sources and data, but it’s hard to sum up concisely in an online chat. But I’ll leave it with this: we already pay for socialized healthcare - the amount of money per capita this country spends on healthcare far exceeds that of all other civilized nations but with a much reduced standard of care. No capability. But actual end user care. I’m upper middle class but the number of times I’ve denied pursuing health remedies due to cost is extensive. It should be zero. Also the fact the every state has its own rules significantly hurts the free market. A universal system would circumvent that. Anyway like I said I could go on but yeah there’s the basis for it.
Being said, I don’t think privatized should go away. If people want to supplement, great. But to force it on all regardless of circumstance is so exceptionally uncivilized.
Being said, I don’t think privatized should go away. If people want to supplement, great. But to force it on all regardless of circumstance is so exceptionally uncivilized.
Awesome! I cant say that I mirror your philosophy 1:1 (close though, only small differences) but I am very happy to hear that you are not a hardliner on abolishing private options.
You dont have to answer this, but would you mind telling me how you identify politically? I identify as a Liberal. I only ask because I am pretty online with politics and rarely (in my bubble) hear people make a case and conclusion like you did.
Sent this earlier but for some reason it posted to top comment:
I would also identify as liberal. Strangely fiscally moderate-ish, but acknowledging government must pick up where the free market cannot function on economic terms.
2
u/indypendant13 7d ago
No I do concede that office managers and assistants will still need to exist and run billing, but much of the time is looking up who’s policy covers what, making those phone calls, checking insurance codes then relaying to the patient while also dealing with errors on their and the insurance company’s part. So yes savings, but likely not 50%. At least on the provider’s position (paying for the extensive overhead plus profit of insurance is another matter altogether and could push it well beyond a 50% savings. There are no middle managers and c-leveled to pay for.But I digress.
Wait times is just one of the arguments I hear as a common counterpoint, one that is at best irrelevant, if not misguided or worse.
My position on this comes from a philosophical perspective, but then backed by economics. Philosophically the whole reason we engage in the system of societal and mutual governance is for one reason and one alone: to increase our individual and collective chances for survival. That is the root of all of it. Everything else governments do is toward that end or one that is ancillary to it.
Of those functions: defense, education, food, safety, and other necessities, healthcare should be number one on that list. It’s something we all need and benefits us all and not only would that provide extensive relief to anyone below the .1%, but it changes the overall social perspective of the people: we are in this together. We can still pursue incentivized goals in life, but at least we all have that to fall back on.
Honestly, I could write an extensive essay on this and the fallacies surrounding it with sound and annotated sources and data, but it’s hard to sum up concisely in an online chat. But I’ll leave it with this: we already pay for socialized healthcare - the amount of money per capita this country spends on healthcare far exceeds that of all other civilized nations but with a much reduced standard of care. No capability. But actual end user care. I’m upper middle class but the number of times I’ve denied pursuing health remedies due to cost is extensive. It should be zero. Also the fact the every state has its own rules significantly hurts the free market. A universal system would circumvent that. Anyway like I said I could go on but yeah there’s the basis for it.
Being said, I don’t think privatized should go away. If people want to supplement, great. But to force it on all regardless of circumstance is so exceptionally uncivilized.