This is an interesting idea I hadn't encountered before.https://twitter.com/gabriel_mathy/status/1062045082109517826 …
-
-
Ideally each approach would be used somewhere, so we can compare them.
-
You can look to Australia. Prices are set at a national level. Providers can charge in excess but this "gap" is not covered by the national insurance scheme - medicare. A similar approach is used for medications - the pharmaceutical benefits scheme.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- 3 more replies
-
-
-
There's no nation with either a totally nationalized (apart from the UK) or totally privatized healthcare system. Any solution we take will have to use the state where the state works best and markets where they work best. The first move should still be to move off of employer HC
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Couldn't agree more!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
In the long run, privatized is a far better option.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The real cost can be drastically reduced by eliminating (or at least reforming) the patent system in regards to medicine AND removing professional licensing laws. Let medical malpractice insurance companies determine the correct education, not schools or governments. /1
New conversation -
-
-
Who is best to make the rationing decision? I lean towards a hybrid where govt rations by describing a baseline single payer but add in a robust supplemental market, but open to being swayed
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.