“Not my choice now but if it were done with a cap on funding based on, say, GDP, it would contain costs.”
Yes, and like the U.K. quality and availability of care would gradually become worse because the “cost containment” measures are themselves artificial, artiificial to the products and services being offered.
No. The problem is the government itself. Left 100% to market forces, the availability of care would go up and the cost would go down. Instead the industry is just competing for more government dollars.
As to my comment: “No. The problem is the government itself. Left 100% to market forces, the availability of care would go up and the cost would go down. Instead the industry is just competing for more government dollars.”
Laser eye surgery. When it began there were calls that health care insurers and medicare cover it. That was resisted. It is still usually not covered by insurance. Having to compete for out-of-pocket paying customers instead of insurance companies and the government, given the inflation rates over the years, laser eye surgery has become more affordable than 20 years ago.
“Left 100% to market forces, the availability of care would go up and the cost would go down”
How is that done? Insurance and government help with medical expenses ... it’s very complex.
It needs to become an issue for voters. Right now it’s not a hot issue. Voters by and large must be content with their medical care. The poor get government coverage. The non-poor have insurance often provided by their employer. They (like me) know how much the insurance costs but we accept it without much grumbling.