For years, I thought that a "single-payor plan" was when the patient paid the entire bill (the single payer) and sought reimbursement from his or her insurance carrier, rather than the patient, the insurance company, and in some cases the gov'ment each paying a portion of the same bill directly to the doctor. This very simple concept would probably do more to lower the cost of health care and increase resources for the least amount of money, then any of the proposals coming from the RATS or the PUBS. People would be less likely to see their doctor for a bloody nose, hangnail, or the common cold, if they had to pay the $150 out of pocket,and then spend an hour filling out the paperowrk for reimbursement from their insurance company and/or medicaid/medicare, and even more time fighting for the payment; and the insurance companies would have to be more price competitive and consumer friendly if they are dealing with the consumer directly. Doctors could then cut costs because they would not need the added staff to deal with the insurance companies and medicaid/medicare, and would have more time to deal with real medical problems, rather than self-healing bumps and bruises.
And what about the people who don't have the funds to pay for medical services up front and wait for reimbursement? I can pretty much guarantee that economic forces will result in many doctors accepting payment by credit card, payment over time, and/or an assignment from the patient of the insurance/medicaid/medicare reimbursement.
My GP is thinking strongly of dumping insured patients alltogether and just going to a pay-as-you-go.
She keeps two people on staff in her office just to deal with insurance and the gov't. She's also sick of charging $300 to look in a kid's ear, when the real cost is $75, and that's what she gets reimbursed for by the same entities.
Can't say as I blame her. Looking forward to it, actually.