Who hurts the US Healthcare system worse?

Nonreligious Questions

quote:

---

So, instead of $7200 per year for catastrophic insurance for Carol and I, plus paying out about $10,000 out of pocket each year due to the high deductible and pre-existing conditionswe will pay either $1200 or $3600 per year for a damned sight better coverage and much fewer out of pocket expenses.

---

There is provision to mitigate losses to them caused by increased cost to them. Not ideal, but that's capitalism for you.First of all - there will be fund set up (paid for not by the government, but by a fee on insurance premiums. It is a reinsurance scheme, and it entirely common. This fund will contribute costs towards particularly expensive medical bills over $45k dollars. It helps prevent the insurance companies from going bankrupt in the face of large unexpected expenses.The second provision, the 'ESTABLISHMENT OF RISK CORRIDORS FOR PLANS IN INDIVIDUAL AND SMALL GROUP MARKETS;' is kind of difficult to understand. As far as I can tell, after reinsurances and the like, if an insurance company pays more in benefits than they take in premiums they get a payout (and if they don't they pay a fine). The idea here is, I think, to provide confidence to the market that the insurance companies will have a readjustment period so unexpected consequences of ACA won't cause chaos. After a few years, they should have figured out their new costs and the scheme ends. Wow, really? A study performed by a group dedicated to repealing Obamacare as reported by a Fox News author found some frightening conclusion about Obamacare. It must be true then Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

UK: Salaried GPs who are part of a CCG earn between 54,319 to 81,969USA: The general practitioner in the United States receives an average yearly salary ranging from between $168,550 to $173,175 per year.So in US, the pay is twice that of Britain. The language is the same, and the culture is not drastically different. Why does Britain have any doctors?

Because they could get paid twice what they do, for largely the same job, in the US.Unless you are suggesting that there is a realistic prospect of US doctor's salaries more than halving - why would we worry about any significant brain drain happening?

I don't follow your point. There are a lot of foreign born doctors in the UK. Why are they doctoring in the UK and not the US? So logically, the US should pay doctors more?

You said that we should not pay doctors less. The reason was to retain talent. Therefore, in order to ensure we retain the best talent (your goal) we should pay more. Unless you think that by some fluke the US is paying doctors precisely the right amount to keep the best doctors doctoring we should logically increase their wages. You are saying that paying them less 'could cause a loss to the high-end doctors, who are superior in their practice, and who also command a higher pay.'. You want to retain the top doctors? Want to encourage the finest minds into medicine? It seems the only reasonable thing to do would be to increase the pay. The best, after all, 'command a higher pay' so why are you trying to destroy the American health care system by not providing a higher pay? Exactly. So you think they should earn 'higher pay', to avoid disincentivising the best. You think that the US' finest minds are in medicine right now? No! The best {potential} doctors are disencintivised by the current pay. So we should raise it!

I'm pretty sure doctors' wages are already limited by artifice. No, but apparently it ensures the talent pool is of higher quality. The proposal of limiting the maximum possible wage doesn't prohibit this performance related wages.

Here in the UK you can opt to pay for private healthcare through someone like Bupa, and you can pay for this with private health insurance or out of your own back pocket. I've had a few issues that I've dealt with privately during the times I could afford to do so.