Single Payer.pngWhether using a public single-payer government run or private insurance company run for profit healthcare system, either system's ultimate effectiveness- or lack of same- literally comes down to the convergence of three factors: 1. How much of each dollar actually goes to healthcare needs as opposed to insurance company overhead and profit? 2. How large, old, and healthy are the pool of users necessary to amortize the total healthcare costs of the entire system? 3. And does the entity running the system have any incentive and/or ability to negotiate lower prices for the goods and services it is paying for?

Under our present for profit private insurance run system, one-third of every dollar spent on healthcare actually goes to insurance company overhead costs and profit, while the French single-payer government run non-profit healthcare system costs about half of what our system costs and yet by every measure gives better healthcare: The French with their single-payer system live longer and don't get as sick as Americans, because they receive appropriate medical treatment in a more timely manner from doctors who are not seeing 30-40 patients a day, like American doctors do, where malpractice is a predictable result.

And whether a common drug like insulin or those used by smaller populations of patients, the French government negotiates what they are willing to pay for drugs, base on the pharmaceutical companies actual costs of development and a reasonable non-gouging profit.

Could this present American system also be a byproduct of the purposeful creation of artificial scarcity of doctors by limiting the number of doctors being allowed in medical schools in the United States?

Requiring all Americans and doctors to be part of a single-payer healthcare system would lower the overall costs of such a government run system, since the disproportionate high cost of dealing with the elderly's healthcare would be subsidized by a healthier younger population, who in effect would be prepaying their own healthcare, when they got older.

What somehow has gotten lost in the discussion of single payer vs. private insurance company run healthcare is the fact that you would get to keep your same doctors under either system. The only differences would be that more doctors would be able to see fewer patients, which would actually allow them to know their patients' subjective medical history and likely future medical needs, because they would finally have the time to actually practice medicine.

Continuity of care cannot take place when one has six different primary care physicians in three years, because doctors who took a job at an HMO, when they finished their residency, leave as soon as they or their spouse find something better, that more approximates the practice of medicine, as opposed to 15 minute appointments with their patients, who they have no continuity of treatment with.

Over the last 5 years I have been wearing a CPAP machine when I sleep to supposedly treat a sleep APNEA condition I supposedly had. After reading several articles about APNEA and losing 15 lbs of excess weight using a "silver sneakers" physical exercise program paid for by my Medicare supplement program, I pushed to have another sleep study done, which showed that I no longer had sleep APNEA.

If I had had a real primary care physician, might that doctor have had the time to truly diagnosis and develop alternatives to a one size fits all personally invasive CPAP machine treatment, which probably wasn't necessary in the first place?

No Comments

Leave a comment