Originally Posted by dippin

the key problem is that a fractioned system based on employment generates all sorts of perverse incentives. It is easier to compete for the "healthy" population than it is to compete via costs, and given the fact that its employment based the time horizon that is included in the actuarial calculations is generally shorter than it would be if different incentives were given (especially with medicare as a light at the end of the tunnel). The end result is that the American healthcare system has significantly higher overhead costs than any other industrialized nation, even in the most generous single payer systems.

Personally, I think that the primary goals of reform should be to end employment based health insurance, discourage the current "competition by denial of coverage" model, provide incentives for long term insurance contracting so that there is a bigger incentive to provide preventive care. How to do this all in a system where the government does not step in would be a challenge. Which is why I am in complete support of a single payer system, which has been significantly more efficient given international healthcare comparisons. State inefficiencies are ridiculously low if compared to the overhead costs of a system where companies compete to insure only the desirable demographics and every single procedure has to be verified ad nauseum by dozens of non medical professionals.

---------- Post added at 12:12 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:09 AM ----------



non profit doesn't mean low salary or no commission. In fact, several non-profits pay quite well. Non-profit means that the net profits of the company are reinvested in it instead of being distributed to the owners or share holders. And while I appreciate your concern for your job, the fewer non-medical people the system employs, by definition the more efficient the system is and the lower the overhead costs are.