In no way does private insurance help anyone have faster or more comprehensive treatment.
Sure, if someone is wealthy enough to pay cash for major medical needs, they will get faster/priority from doctors. But if there's a single system, it's better funded. Taking profit reduces the pool.
Sure, if someone is wealthy enough to pay cash for major medical needs, they will get faster/priority from doctors. But if there's a single system, it's better funded. Taking profit reduces the pool.
Comments
In the UK, waiting times were the most important factor for people choosing private, with ease of access not far behind as the second most important thing.
I’m now defending private insurance when all I said was that no private healthcare is not something any country does, like ever.
You do see that, right? The hospitals and doctors have nothing to do with the insurance companies unless you're talking about Kaiser (for example).
You still haven't explained how taking profit is better.
Also I am looking at private as an entirely different system, like in Finland, Sweden, France and Spain etc. where offices and hospitals are owned outright by insurance.
I ask again, what's the point? To reduce accountability? The people in this country have virtually no recourse against private business. Might as well let the govt do exactly what the non-profit does, but with accountability.