It wasn’t until I heard Dr. Flynn discuss the history of healthcare in the U.S. that I understood why it’s such a transactional industry. The production demands of WWII reduced healthcare to a convenient add-on of employment as opposed to a priority that every single American should be prepared to finance. It was used as a tool to attract workers as opposed to making healing (which I think everyone deserves) accessible to Americans.
Over the years, this benevolent provision of healthcare by companies has unconsciously made healthcare professionals be more responsive to insurance companies as opposed to the consumer because their paycheck no longer comes directly from their patients. One of the biggest ‘cultural’ shocks coming into the United States for me was the growing concern my parents had for any of my illnesses. This is because every time I got mildly sick, my parents would never know exactly how much they had to pay, I would get prescribed medications that doctors in my home country didn’t deem necessary, and I would get minimal follow-ups after.
It has been proven time and time again that businesses, regardless of their industry, are loyal and responsive not to those who have demand alone, but to the ones that have the capital to back it up. The free market is the most effective way to satisfy the customer and drive prices down, but it loses all effectivity when the customer isn’t the one providing the capital directly. Therefore, I do agree that the third-party system just makes the healthcare industry an unsuccessful quid pro quo relationship between doctors and companies, not patients.
Although I do believe that a symbol of freedom is allowing Americans to do whatever they please with their money, there are some instances in which I do think that human nature would go against their best interests.
The empathy gap is a common yet natural cognitive error that explains that humans have a difficult time empathizing or even caring for the future/older version of themselves or situations that have not occurred yet. They only prioritize immediate gratification. Therefore, if it is naturally difficult for humans to save for their guaranteed aging, I believe it’s even more challenging to save for a potential health complication.
This is why I think the structure of Medisave in Singapore is the most effective. Making saving for healthcare mandatory for all citizens saves them from their careless human tendencies and gives them something stable to fall back on in case the unpredicted happens.
In addition to this, people are not relying on an insurance company to bargain for a price that most benefits them and leave patients with the rest. They rely on their own savings, as nothing was given to them.
Because prices are based on lengthy negotiations between insurance companies and healthcare institutions, it’s impossible for patients to know the true cost of their health requirements. Not only does this increase the financial risk people must endure for the unpredictability of health, but there is no specific price that other healthcare providers are trying to reduce in order to attract more patients.
I think the current payment system in the United States is potentially weighing down the quality of the health-providing industry overall. Although there are laws and oaths that prevent doctors and healthcare professionals from harming their patients in any way, I do think that they are not incentivized to provide the best possible care they can because they don’t necessarily have to. And if they aren’t motivated to improve, there’s nothing to drive innovation and progress.
In my opinion, the high deductible insurance system allows for smarter participation in the market and provides an incentive to save, which is the reason why I think Americans would benefit from implementing this system nationwide.
Some people might be pushed to get unnecessarily expensive medications or procedures just because insurance covers them or, in the case of Canada, because it’s “free.” Because a predetermined portion of a health cost is at the expense of the patient, people still hold that responsibility to be conscious with their money, therefore helping the US spend less money on healthcare overall. Although healthcare is a vital service that every citizen should enjoy, I don’t think that should exempt them from the financial responsibility of it.
Some American citizens have been advocating for a fairer healthcare system through the implementation of the single-payer system. Instead of having multiple insurance companies bargaining for prices, there would be a singular federal institution paying on behalf of the American people.
Although this would allow them to set more just prices, they can’t possibly cover all medical procedures that people need, making them choose which processes to pay for and not, therefore, leaving a part of the population unprotected. In addition, this concentration of power would give lobbyists in the healthcare system a singular entity to sway in their favor, setting higher prices with nobody to compete with.
