re: #87 researchok

with lesser services- and may say quality of care- now the rule of thumb.

But this isn’t actually true. Why do you think it is?

The time to see a general practitioner in single-payer systems is less. for most, than in the US, and the care give by GPs is better. The time to see a specialist in the US is less than most— but we’re still not the leader.

And in terms of quality, we’re not the best by a number of measures.

theincidentaleconomist.com

Image: HPE-Quality-2011.044.jpg

Image: HPE-Quality-2011.42.042.jpg

What is your basis for saying that care in single-payer countries is worse, and that there are ‘lesser services’?

I do wonder if we wouldn’t have been better offer starting with insurance reform, disallowing insurance companies from offering coverage to anyone. From there we could have moved on to health care reform, absolutely necessary given demographic trends.

The problem is that health insurance is a naturally broken market. There is no incentive at all for a health insurance company to insure, or to provide benefits for, an actually sick person, at least not without making their insurance incredibly expensive.

This makes it different than other forms of insurance. The free market behaves very badly in naturally broken markets.