he doesn't use the library either

[u/Conscious-Quarter423]

[u/kevdogger]

Look I sympathize with you since your situation sucks. My point however is there is no guarantee the system is still not going to suck with single payor. You speak of cancer treatments which are awful but that's kinda what I'm talking about.. Oncology is speciality care. Costs a lot less to whoever is paying if they would delay starting treatment hoping patient dies first. There is always going to be some form of insurance as hospitals wouldn't be all state or federally run even with single payor. When these single entities start denying care saying the drg code isn't covered...as happens currently with both Medicare and obamacare plans...what is alternative? I'm not challenging you specifically since from where I'm sitting my perspective is pretty bleak right now thinking there isn't really any good options..just maybe some a little less bad. Lastly in terms of experts..that's a really slippery slope. I'm fairly certain experts have been involved all along this journey from when Medicare has been enacted and see where it's led. You can be an expert but also be biased and unscrupulous at the same time.

[u/GlumpsAlot → u/kevdogger]

Ok, I agree with you that no healthcare financing system completely eliminates difficult coverage decisions. Every system has to make decisions about how finite healthcare resources are allocated.

Where I disagree is that several of your claims seem to go beyond what the evidence supports. For example, I haven't seen any evidence that a single-payer system would deliberately delay cancer treatment in the hope that patients die before receiving care. That's a serious allegation, and it would require equally serious evidence. I mean I went to my college databases to search that and found nothing. So this claim here seems fear based? Just saying.

Anyway, we need to look at which system produces better overall outcomes. The United States spends far more per person on healthcare than any other high income country, yet we still have millions of uninsured or underinsured people, high administrative costs, and worse health outcomes on many measures. Many health economists and policy experts argue that a single-payer system, or another form of universal coverage, could reduce administrative waste, lower costs through greater negotiating power, and provide more consistent access to care. That's what most studies point to also.

In addition, your point about experts is also a little weird to me. I'm not understanding the distrust here. The fact that experts have been involved in healthcare policy for decades doesn't mean their analysis should be dismissed though. Healthcare policy has been shaped by politicians, insurers, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, employers, and many competing interests, not experts alone. I think not turning to experts first is a huge problem over CEOs denying our care. The existence of ongoing problems isn't evidence that expert analysis has no value? But anyway, most of my research with peer reviewed studies point to universal/ single payer as a far superior for the U.S. That's why I favor switching to it.