Jesse Ramirez8 said:I think you’re totally mixing up apples and oranges here. There is a massive difference between the administrative system and the actual quality of the doctors providing the care. My point was specifically that the American SYSTEM itself isn't necessarily the finest medical framework in the world. And regarding everything else you mentioned about science and research... well, isn't that pretty much the case with almost everything else in America?
If you think those are different things, then I guess you're a bit confused. Quality comes from the system; you can't really separate the two. It's not like Americans just woke up one morning and decided to have the best doctors on the planet.
Here's a snippet from today's Wall Street Journal:
http://www.wsj.com/newsroom/example_link_207EFB74D2E9.2WSJ: What should insurance holders expect?
MILINOVIĆ: There’s a chance we could take a portion of the health tax that the working population pays into Medicare and set it aside. That way, every employee, employer, or both could decide where to put it—say, maybe two percent out of the total fifteen percent health tax. So, thirteen percent would go to Medicare based on solidarity, while that two percent could be used to choose a different insurance provider. Employees need to have the right to actively participate in how their money is distributed and pick a company for specific parts of their coverage, excluding primary care. Under this model, Medicare would cover 80 percent of hospital budgets, and hospitals would earn the rest through the market via other insurance companies. With a good manager, they might even earn more than twenty percent on the market, which would allow for higher pay for those who work harder or specialize more.
WSJ: Medicare loses its monopoly, but also loses some funding.
MILINOVIĆ: True, but it also stops paying for a portion of the healthcare provided to workers, which currently costs Medicare 2.7 billion. In a market-based insurance model, expenses for treating the working population will likely be lower because there will be better control over spending. One of the strategic goals of this reform is also improving the status of doctors. The government, per collective bargaining, guarantees everyone a base salary—which is currently around $400—but the market and competition create opportunities for extra income. Those who treat patients better or perform more surgeries will be able to earn more. Private investment in hospitals will also open up, so the state budget won't have to spend as much on capital investments. I’m confident this can fix the healthcare system, and eventually, we can talk about lowering the fifteen percent health tax, which is among the highest in Europe, and that’s just not acceptable. It’s clear how much a lower tax would help the economy.
WSJ: How will patient co-pays be “reformed”?
MILINOVIĆ: Right now, we have co-pays ranging from 10 to 50 percent of the service cost, so in many cases, that ten percent doesn't even cover the cost of the paperwork. Instead of that 10 to 50 percent range, I’d propose a flat 20 percent co-pay for all services, from specialist visits to hospital stays. But we’d also implement a fixed minimum co-pay for everything. If twenty percent ends up being less than that minimum amount, the patient just pays the set minimum price for that service.
The reform won't financially burden low-income groups, and Medicare will still provide supplemental insurance.
Wait, that's weird, looks like the current administration is still in power.😁 See, this is EXACTLY what I told you guys.