Why restrict private health insurance?Do white house and congressional staffers currently (or sans Obamacare) receive subsidies for their health insurance?How many people will be unable to keep their health insurance plan in 2014 due to the ACA?How would the cost for health insurance change in Germany, if 40% instead of 90% were part of statutory insurance?Why can't Americans purchase health insurance across state lines?Have high risk health insurance pools been tried in practice?Can someone explain how the healthcare Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) testing is applied to health insurance policies?Why does Spain have such a low paid leave available to mothers?Why does Virginia allow driving without vehicle liability insurance by paying an “Uninsured Motor Vehicle fee”?Do any members of Congress support a British-style socialized healthcare system?How does insurance birth control work in the United States?
Inorganic chemistry handbook with reaction lists
PTIJ: Sport in the Torah
Having the player face themselves after the mid-game
I've given my players a lot of magic items. Is it reasonable for me to give them harder encounters?
What would be the most expensive material to an intergalactic society?
Use Mercury as quenching liquid for swords?
Short story about cities being connected by a conveyor belt
Cycles on the torus
What does *dead* mean in *What do you mean, dead?*?
Can I negotiate a patent idea for a raise, under French law?
If nine coins are tossed, what is the probability that the number of heads is even?
Does an unused member variable take up memory?
How do you make a gun that shoots melee weapons and/or swords?
Is this Paypal Github SDK reference really a dangerous site?
Is there a logarithm base for which the logarithm becomes an identity function?
Who has more? Ireland or Iceland?
Create chunks from an array
Boss Telling direct supervisor I snitched
Rationale to prefer local variables over instance variables?
In Diabelli's "Duet in D" for piano, what are these brackets on chords that look like vertical slurs?
How spaceships determine each other's mass in space?
How to install "rounded" brake pads
How to recover against Snake as a heavyweight character?
Generating a list with duplicate entries
Why restrict private health insurance?
Do white house and congressional staffers currently (or sans Obamacare) receive subsidies for their health insurance?How many people will be unable to keep their health insurance plan in 2014 due to the ACA?How would the cost for health insurance change in Germany, if 40% instead of 90% were part of statutory insurance?Why can't Americans purchase health insurance across state lines?Have high risk health insurance pools been tried in practice?Can someone explain how the healthcare Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) testing is applied to health insurance policies?Why does Spain have such a low paid leave available to mothers?Why does Virginia allow driving without vehicle liability insurance by paying an “Uninsured Motor Vehicle fee”?Do any members of Congress support a British-style socialized healthcare system?How does insurance birth control work in the United States?
There are several countries in which all citizens have a right to healthcare that is paid for by the government, e.g. in Canada.
Yet in some of these countries (again noteably certain parts of Canada), there are further restrictions on the sale of private health insurance. For example, private insurance can not be used for procedures that are available via the public healthcare system.
For example, prior to the 2005 Chaoulli v Quebec (AG) case, the Quebec Health Insurance Act and the Hospital Insurance Act prohibited private medical insurance in the Canadian province of Quebec.
What is the rationale for such restrictions?
healthcare insurance
|
show 11 more comments
There are several countries in which all citizens have a right to healthcare that is paid for by the government, e.g. in Canada.
Yet in some of these countries (again noteably certain parts of Canada), there are further restrictions on the sale of private health insurance. For example, private insurance can not be used for procedures that are available via the public healthcare system.
For example, prior to the 2005 Chaoulli v Quebec (AG) case, the Quebec Health Insurance Act and the Hospital Insurance Act prohibited private medical insurance in the Canadian province of Quebec.
What is the rationale for such restrictions?
healthcare insurance
17
Can you give an example of such a country?
– Thomas
23 hours ago
3
I'm voting to close, as I know of no such country, meaning this is pure speculation. In Canada AFAIK (and a quick google search confirms) private insurance is routinely purchased for employees by their employers.
– Jared Smith
17 hours ago
4
Downvoted: unless there's any example given, the question is flawed. I'm not aware of any country which prohibits private health insurance. Canada doesn't: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Canada#Private_sector. Looks to me like the question should be "why regulate private health insurance", that's quite different.
– Erwan
17 hours ago
4
To rescue the question: Maybe OP had in mind that in some countries, the government-run insurance is mandatory for everyone (e.g. the "Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung" in Germany, or the NHS in the UK - you don't have to use it, but you have to pay). That means it is prohibited / not possible to have private health insurance instead of the public insurance (though additional insurance, e.g. for better care, is still allowed). Maybe that is what OP thought of? @Colin: Could you edit to clarify ?
– sleske
15 hours ago
1
@Graipher: Yes, I know, but I didn't want to muddle things further. I think one could still argue that in Germany, completely private insurance is "restricted" (unless you earn a lot or are self-employed).
– sleske
15 hours ago
|
show 11 more comments
There are several countries in which all citizens have a right to healthcare that is paid for by the government, e.g. in Canada.
Yet in some of these countries (again noteably certain parts of Canada), there are further restrictions on the sale of private health insurance. For example, private insurance can not be used for procedures that are available via the public healthcare system.
For example, prior to the 2005 Chaoulli v Quebec (AG) case, the Quebec Health Insurance Act and the Hospital Insurance Act prohibited private medical insurance in the Canadian province of Quebec.
What is the rationale for such restrictions?
healthcare insurance
There are several countries in which all citizens have a right to healthcare that is paid for by the government, e.g. in Canada.
Yet in some of these countries (again noteably certain parts of Canada), there are further restrictions on the sale of private health insurance. For example, private insurance can not be used for procedures that are available via the public healthcare system.
For example, prior to the 2005 Chaoulli v Quebec (AG) case, the Quebec Health Insurance Act and the Hospital Insurance Act prohibited private medical insurance in the Canadian province of Quebec.
What is the rationale for such restrictions?
healthcare insurance
healthcare insurance
edited 11 hours ago
Martin Schröder
1,0371931
1,0371931
asked 23 hours ago
ColinColin
1,995724
1,995724
17
Can you give an example of such a country?
– Thomas
23 hours ago
3
I'm voting to close, as I know of no such country, meaning this is pure speculation. In Canada AFAIK (and a quick google search confirms) private insurance is routinely purchased for employees by their employers.
– Jared Smith
17 hours ago
4
Downvoted: unless there's any example given, the question is flawed. I'm not aware of any country which prohibits private health insurance. Canada doesn't: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Canada#Private_sector. Looks to me like the question should be "why regulate private health insurance", that's quite different.
– Erwan
17 hours ago
4
To rescue the question: Maybe OP had in mind that in some countries, the government-run insurance is mandatory for everyone (e.g. the "Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung" in Germany, or the NHS in the UK - you don't have to use it, but you have to pay). That means it is prohibited / not possible to have private health insurance instead of the public insurance (though additional insurance, e.g. for better care, is still allowed). Maybe that is what OP thought of? @Colin: Could you edit to clarify ?
– sleske
15 hours ago
1
@Graipher: Yes, I know, but I didn't want to muddle things further. I think one could still argue that in Germany, completely private insurance is "restricted" (unless you earn a lot or are self-employed).
– sleske
15 hours ago
|
show 11 more comments
17
Can you give an example of such a country?
– Thomas
23 hours ago
3
I'm voting to close, as I know of no such country, meaning this is pure speculation. In Canada AFAIK (and a quick google search confirms) private insurance is routinely purchased for employees by their employers.
– Jared Smith
17 hours ago
4
Downvoted: unless there's any example given, the question is flawed. I'm not aware of any country which prohibits private health insurance. Canada doesn't: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Canada#Private_sector. Looks to me like the question should be "why regulate private health insurance", that's quite different.
– Erwan
17 hours ago
4
To rescue the question: Maybe OP had in mind that in some countries, the government-run insurance is mandatory for everyone (e.g. the "Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung" in Germany, or the NHS in the UK - you don't have to use it, but you have to pay). That means it is prohibited / not possible to have private health insurance instead of the public insurance (though additional insurance, e.g. for better care, is still allowed). Maybe that is what OP thought of? @Colin: Could you edit to clarify ?
– sleske
15 hours ago
1
@Graipher: Yes, I know, but I didn't want to muddle things further. I think one could still argue that in Germany, completely private insurance is "restricted" (unless you earn a lot or are self-employed).
– sleske
15 hours ago
17
17
Can you give an example of such a country?
– Thomas
23 hours ago
Can you give an example of such a country?
– Thomas
23 hours ago
3
3
I'm voting to close, as I know of no such country, meaning this is pure speculation. In Canada AFAIK (and a quick google search confirms) private insurance is routinely purchased for employees by their employers.
– Jared Smith
17 hours ago
I'm voting to close, as I know of no such country, meaning this is pure speculation. In Canada AFAIK (and a quick google search confirms) private insurance is routinely purchased for employees by their employers.
– Jared Smith
17 hours ago
4
4
Downvoted: unless there's any example given, the question is flawed. I'm not aware of any country which prohibits private health insurance. Canada doesn't: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Canada#Private_sector. Looks to me like the question should be "why regulate private health insurance", that's quite different.
– Erwan
17 hours ago
Downvoted: unless there's any example given, the question is flawed. I'm not aware of any country which prohibits private health insurance. Canada doesn't: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Canada#Private_sector. Looks to me like the question should be "why regulate private health insurance", that's quite different.
– Erwan
17 hours ago
4
4
To rescue the question: Maybe OP had in mind that in some countries, the government-run insurance is mandatory for everyone (e.g. the "Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung" in Germany, or the NHS in the UK - you don't have to use it, but you have to pay). That means it is prohibited / not possible to have private health insurance instead of the public insurance (though additional insurance, e.g. for better care, is still allowed). Maybe that is what OP thought of? @Colin: Could you edit to clarify ?
– sleske
15 hours ago
To rescue the question: Maybe OP had in mind that in some countries, the government-run insurance is mandatory for everyone (e.g. the "Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung" in Germany, or the NHS in the UK - you don't have to use it, but you have to pay). That means it is prohibited / not possible to have private health insurance instead of the public insurance (though additional insurance, e.g. for better care, is still allowed). Maybe that is what OP thought of? @Colin: Could you edit to clarify ?
– sleske
15 hours ago
1
1
@Graipher: Yes, I know, but I didn't want to muddle things further. I think one could still argue that in Germany, completely private insurance is "restricted" (unless you earn a lot or are self-employed).
– sleske
15 hours ago
@Graipher: Yes, I know, but I didn't want to muddle things further. I think one could still argue that in Germany, completely private insurance is "restricted" (unless you earn a lot or are self-employed).
– sleske
15 hours ago
|
show 11 more comments
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
Universal health insurance which is affordable for everyone can only work when the healthy people subsidize the people with chronic health problems.
If you have a completely unregulated private insurance sector, then the private insurers would be free to choose their customers. Given that chance they would reject anyone with pre-existing conditions, because these people would become a net cost instead of a net benefit for the insurance company. So the private insurers would grab all the "good" customers while the government provided health insurance is stuck with the "bad" ones. That means the cost for the taxpayer to provide that health insurance would increase drastically (either because the state needs to subsidize the health insurance system or because the premiums must be increased) while the private insurers make a hefty profit.
There are basically two solutions for this problem.
Either you strongly regulate the private insurers in order to prevent them from cherry-picking their customers. You might make it illegal for insurance companies to reject customers or to take different prices for the same plan from different customers. But it's hard to outlaw things like targeted advertisement or insurance plans heavily optimized for the preferences of certain target groups.
Or you make the government health insurance mandatory for all citizens. This effectively removes the market for private health insurance and only leaves a market for "luxury" health services which go beyond the regular health care.
7
I don't think the last point holds up. The UK has in effect mandatory health insurance (although the NHS is funded from general taxation / national insurance contributions, rather than as a specific health insurance charge), but there is still a pretty large private health sector for people who want to pay more for better treatment / shorter waiting lists. But that's kind of tangential to your main point.
– PhillS
18 hours ago
8
This contrasts private and public sector insurance, but the two are orthogonal: one could purchase a private policy to "top up" the public one. The crux of the question (as I understand it) is why a polity would prohibit such a possibility.
– Jared Smith
18 hours ago
1
"Universal health insurance which is affordable for everyone can only work when the healthy people subsidize the people with chronic health problems." That is incorrect, for example in the UK it is funded from income tax so it is the wealthy subsidising those who would otherwise not be able to afford healthcare.
– user
17 hours ago
2
@user The UK is an example of a country which goes for mandatory health insurance for everyone. This is required for income-based insurance fees to work, because on an unregulated free market, private insurance providers would have no reason to charge people based on their income. So for high-income people, private insurance would likely be a far better deal in such a system. Again, all the "bad" customers go to the government and all the "good" customers go to the private insurances.
– Philipp♦
16 hours ago
3
This is only true if you could opt-out of the public healthcare
– Orangesandlemons
14 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
Universal healthcare systems can be harmed by competition from private healthcare, such as when the private companies pay more and make it difficult for the state system to recruit staff. It can also make it harder for national systems to buy medicine at reasonable prices, when manufacturers can rely on the private sector paying more and people desperate for it.
There are also issues of fairness, as when private treatment is available those who can afford it can bypass queues in the state system by getting specific procedures done privately, and then return to the state system when it suits them.
Another issue is the state picking up the bill for failures in the private sector, such as a recent incident in the UK where sub-standard breast implants fitted by a company that subsequently went bust had to be fixed at the taxpayer's expense.
5
While these are the justifications usually given, it's worth noting that they're false.
– Jared Smith
18 hours ago
8
@user lots of reasons: if the market for private insurance on top of e.g. the NHS is so large that it threatens the functioning of the universal system then the public system is obviously grossly inadequate. If a party is willing to pay more for a medicine, then the price will go up which will incentivize production (driving the price back down to equilibrium). Same for staff. "getting specific procedures done privately, and then return to the state system" what's wrong with that? They would have otherwise been done with public funds. Do you object to not having to pay for them?
– Jared Smith
17 hours ago
13
@JaredSmith your personal opinion is irrelevant, the questioner is asking what are the reasons people have, not how good you consider them to be.
– user
17 hours ago
6
@user has nothing to do with my personal opinion, that's just how economics works. And I totally agree with you that it answers the OP's question as stated (although I've voted to close the question as being pure speculation). I did not downvote your answer.
– Jared Smith
17 hours ago
7
@JaredSmith no, it's definitely your opinion.
– user
17 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
One reason, which is not touched upon by other answers, is that private insurance coverage would increase health care costs for everyone, including those universally covered.
One of the major points of savings in a single-payer system is the reduced administrative overhead. People automatically think of the reduced overall overhead and elimination of redundancies for a single payer vs multiple insurance companies, but what has as much impact is the reduction in administrative staff and systems needed for health care providers to handle billing.
If you have a single payer, there are only one set of reimbursements, one method of coding and bundling procedure coding for insurance claims, one set of rules and prerequisites for allowable claims. For every insurer you add, you are adding the complexity of tracking a parallel system for the differences between insurers, and then the need to track which patients align with which sets of insurance rules, so the provider and the patient don't unexpectedly get stuck with a service that can't be paid for. This administrative overhead drives up the cost of all health care for that provider, and that is reflected in the billing rates the provider will charge to all patients.
So, if you have a system that is paid for by tax dollars, allowing private insurers, to a certain degree, would require all taxpayers taking on an added burden for the benefit of that private insurer, and not just the premium paying customers of that insurance company.
1
I don't see how this can be true. There will still be providers who only support a single insurer and they will undercut the providers who support more than one. A business can't engage in a practice that makes them less efficient and pass that cost on unless every business in that sector has to engage in that practice. If pretty much any private company could raise their prices without providing better services, they would. They don't need an excuse to do that.
– David Schwartz
9 hours ago
1
-1 because if this was posted on StackOverflow, I'd just respond with "that's what interfaces are for". You have a single set of specs that all insurances have to abide by, thus reducing overhead to nothing.
– user4012
8 hours ago
add a comment |
I think the law doesn't regulate (or only indirectly regulates) the insurance providers.
The main point is that it regulates the service providers (i.e. the health care providers, e.g. doctors).
I think the law is that you (a health care provider) are legally not allowed to charge privately (e.g. to charge a patient or a private insurance company) for any type of service (e.g. surgery) that would be paid for by the government's universal health insurance (which includes any or every kind of mainstream health care).
And the rationale for that restriction is that they (the government i.e. the people) don't want a "two-tier" health system, where rich people (and/or people with private insurance) get better health care, and other people get worse health care.
I think a Canadian Health Minister (i.e. a politician) once said that in the States anyone can get however much health care each person can afford, whereas in Canada everyone can get however much they need.
I think I heard that leads to cases where e.g. a professional athlete goes to the States to get a soft-tissue injury looked at quickly (and at private cost), but generally I don't think that (i.e. cross-border shopping) is a big factor.
Private insurance in Canada is allowed and available for what's not covered by the universal (provincial) plans -- e.g. prescriptions, possibly prostheses too (it's services that are paid for), dental care, eye glasses, maybe physical rehabilitation, pay your lost wages, travel insurance, that kind of thing, maybe a private room in a hospital -- often a (taxable) "benefit" paid by the employer. But I think you can't buy insurance to pay for surgery or to visit a family doctor, because those costs are covered by the government plans.
Or these kinds of costs (which aren't covered for everyone) may be covered by "welfare" (e.g. means-tested) for people with no or low incomes, or who have extraordinarily high prescription drug costs.
It may be (I don't know) that the amount a service provider (e.g. a doctor) can charge is lower, too, that it might be otherwise -- since the government has a monopoly on paying them.
Wikipedia (however I'm not sure that this tells the whole story):
Six of Canada's ten provinces used to ban private insurance for publicly insured services to inhibit queue jumping and so preserve fairness in the health care system. In 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that in Quebec, such bans are unconstitutional if the waiting period for care is excessively long. However, this ruling only applies within the Province of Quebec. A second court challenge is currently underway to determine whether the prohibition of private parallel health care violates the patients' right to life, liberty, and security under Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The criticisms section is long -- but perhaps that's failing to talk about the good news; or the good news is easily summarised:
Health cards are issued by provincial health ministries to individuals who enroll for the program in the province and everyone receives the same level of care. There is no need for a variety of plans because virtually all essential basic care is covered, including maternity
I don't think the service is much worse than elsewhere, and think that it's more-or-less comparable to other developed countries -- but is perhaps unusual (compared to e.g. the UK or France) in not even permitting private health care.
add a comment |
If you do not have the laws in place to deal with private health care, the simple approach is to ban it altogether.
Private health care can do plenty of bad things unless you have the laws to prevent them. To name just a few:
- Only accept young, healthy, male, non smoking, and generally low risk clients. This increases the average costs of the remaining population, all of whom happen to be on public health care.
- Reject renewal for sick clients. This pushes sick people to public health care, increasing cost of public health care.
- Refuse to pay for certain expensive treatments. This pushes people requiring expensive treatments to public health care, increasing cost of public health care.
- Bad faith advertising.
And there's much more than just these. All of these exploits have to be addressed with laws and control mechanisms.
These are compulsions not restrictions- compelling insurance to remove their restrictions.
– user2617804
3 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f39277%2fwhy-restrict-private-health-insurance%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Universal health insurance which is affordable for everyone can only work when the healthy people subsidize the people with chronic health problems.
If you have a completely unregulated private insurance sector, then the private insurers would be free to choose their customers. Given that chance they would reject anyone with pre-existing conditions, because these people would become a net cost instead of a net benefit for the insurance company. So the private insurers would grab all the "good" customers while the government provided health insurance is stuck with the "bad" ones. That means the cost for the taxpayer to provide that health insurance would increase drastically (either because the state needs to subsidize the health insurance system or because the premiums must be increased) while the private insurers make a hefty profit.
There are basically two solutions for this problem.
Either you strongly regulate the private insurers in order to prevent them from cherry-picking their customers. You might make it illegal for insurance companies to reject customers or to take different prices for the same plan from different customers. But it's hard to outlaw things like targeted advertisement or insurance plans heavily optimized for the preferences of certain target groups.
Or you make the government health insurance mandatory for all citizens. This effectively removes the market for private health insurance and only leaves a market for "luxury" health services which go beyond the regular health care.
7
I don't think the last point holds up. The UK has in effect mandatory health insurance (although the NHS is funded from general taxation / national insurance contributions, rather than as a specific health insurance charge), but there is still a pretty large private health sector for people who want to pay more for better treatment / shorter waiting lists. But that's kind of tangential to your main point.
– PhillS
18 hours ago
8
This contrasts private and public sector insurance, but the two are orthogonal: one could purchase a private policy to "top up" the public one. The crux of the question (as I understand it) is why a polity would prohibit such a possibility.
– Jared Smith
18 hours ago
1
"Universal health insurance which is affordable for everyone can only work when the healthy people subsidize the people with chronic health problems." That is incorrect, for example in the UK it is funded from income tax so it is the wealthy subsidising those who would otherwise not be able to afford healthcare.
– user
17 hours ago
2
@user The UK is an example of a country which goes for mandatory health insurance for everyone. This is required for income-based insurance fees to work, because on an unregulated free market, private insurance providers would have no reason to charge people based on their income. So for high-income people, private insurance would likely be a far better deal in such a system. Again, all the "bad" customers go to the government and all the "good" customers go to the private insurances.
– Philipp♦
16 hours ago
3
This is only true if you could opt-out of the public healthcare
– Orangesandlemons
14 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
Universal health insurance which is affordable for everyone can only work when the healthy people subsidize the people with chronic health problems.
If you have a completely unregulated private insurance sector, then the private insurers would be free to choose their customers. Given that chance they would reject anyone with pre-existing conditions, because these people would become a net cost instead of a net benefit for the insurance company. So the private insurers would grab all the "good" customers while the government provided health insurance is stuck with the "bad" ones. That means the cost for the taxpayer to provide that health insurance would increase drastically (either because the state needs to subsidize the health insurance system or because the premiums must be increased) while the private insurers make a hefty profit.
There are basically two solutions for this problem.
Either you strongly regulate the private insurers in order to prevent them from cherry-picking their customers. You might make it illegal for insurance companies to reject customers or to take different prices for the same plan from different customers. But it's hard to outlaw things like targeted advertisement or insurance plans heavily optimized for the preferences of certain target groups.
Or you make the government health insurance mandatory for all citizens. This effectively removes the market for private health insurance and only leaves a market for "luxury" health services which go beyond the regular health care.
7
I don't think the last point holds up. The UK has in effect mandatory health insurance (although the NHS is funded from general taxation / national insurance contributions, rather than as a specific health insurance charge), but there is still a pretty large private health sector for people who want to pay more for better treatment / shorter waiting lists. But that's kind of tangential to your main point.
– PhillS
18 hours ago
8
This contrasts private and public sector insurance, but the two are orthogonal: one could purchase a private policy to "top up" the public one. The crux of the question (as I understand it) is why a polity would prohibit such a possibility.
– Jared Smith
18 hours ago
1
"Universal health insurance which is affordable for everyone can only work when the healthy people subsidize the people with chronic health problems." That is incorrect, for example in the UK it is funded from income tax so it is the wealthy subsidising those who would otherwise not be able to afford healthcare.
– user
17 hours ago
2
@user The UK is an example of a country which goes for mandatory health insurance for everyone. This is required for income-based insurance fees to work, because on an unregulated free market, private insurance providers would have no reason to charge people based on their income. So for high-income people, private insurance would likely be a far better deal in such a system. Again, all the "bad" customers go to the government and all the "good" customers go to the private insurances.
– Philipp♦
16 hours ago
3
This is only true if you could opt-out of the public healthcare
– Orangesandlemons
14 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
Universal health insurance which is affordable for everyone can only work when the healthy people subsidize the people with chronic health problems.
If you have a completely unregulated private insurance sector, then the private insurers would be free to choose their customers. Given that chance they would reject anyone with pre-existing conditions, because these people would become a net cost instead of a net benefit for the insurance company. So the private insurers would grab all the "good" customers while the government provided health insurance is stuck with the "bad" ones. That means the cost for the taxpayer to provide that health insurance would increase drastically (either because the state needs to subsidize the health insurance system or because the premiums must be increased) while the private insurers make a hefty profit.
There are basically two solutions for this problem.
Either you strongly regulate the private insurers in order to prevent them from cherry-picking their customers. You might make it illegal for insurance companies to reject customers or to take different prices for the same plan from different customers. But it's hard to outlaw things like targeted advertisement or insurance plans heavily optimized for the preferences of certain target groups.
Or you make the government health insurance mandatory for all citizens. This effectively removes the market for private health insurance and only leaves a market for "luxury" health services which go beyond the regular health care.
Universal health insurance which is affordable for everyone can only work when the healthy people subsidize the people with chronic health problems.
If you have a completely unregulated private insurance sector, then the private insurers would be free to choose their customers. Given that chance they would reject anyone with pre-existing conditions, because these people would become a net cost instead of a net benefit for the insurance company. So the private insurers would grab all the "good" customers while the government provided health insurance is stuck with the "bad" ones. That means the cost for the taxpayer to provide that health insurance would increase drastically (either because the state needs to subsidize the health insurance system or because the premiums must be increased) while the private insurers make a hefty profit.
There are basically two solutions for this problem.
Either you strongly regulate the private insurers in order to prevent them from cherry-picking their customers. You might make it illegal for insurance companies to reject customers or to take different prices for the same plan from different customers. But it's hard to outlaw things like targeted advertisement or insurance plans heavily optimized for the preferences of certain target groups.
Or you make the government health insurance mandatory for all citizens. This effectively removes the market for private health insurance and only leaves a market for "luxury" health services which go beyond the regular health care.
edited 14 hours ago
answered 18 hours ago
Philipp♦Philipp
40.7k14122148
40.7k14122148
7
I don't think the last point holds up. The UK has in effect mandatory health insurance (although the NHS is funded from general taxation / national insurance contributions, rather than as a specific health insurance charge), but there is still a pretty large private health sector for people who want to pay more for better treatment / shorter waiting lists. But that's kind of tangential to your main point.
– PhillS
18 hours ago
8
This contrasts private and public sector insurance, but the two are orthogonal: one could purchase a private policy to "top up" the public one. The crux of the question (as I understand it) is why a polity would prohibit such a possibility.
– Jared Smith
18 hours ago
1
"Universal health insurance which is affordable for everyone can only work when the healthy people subsidize the people with chronic health problems." That is incorrect, for example in the UK it is funded from income tax so it is the wealthy subsidising those who would otherwise not be able to afford healthcare.
– user
17 hours ago
2
@user The UK is an example of a country which goes for mandatory health insurance for everyone. This is required for income-based insurance fees to work, because on an unregulated free market, private insurance providers would have no reason to charge people based on their income. So for high-income people, private insurance would likely be a far better deal in such a system. Again, all the "bad" customers go to the government and all the "good" customers go to the private insurances.
– Philipp♦
16 hours ago
3
This is only true if you could opt-out of the public healthcare
– Orangesandlemons
14 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
7
I don't think the last point holds up. The UK has in effect mandatory health insurance (although the NHS is funded from general taxation / national insurance contributions, rather than as a specific health insurance charge), but there is still a pretty large private health sector for people who want to pay more for better treatment / shorter waiting lists. But that's kind of tangential to your main point.
– PhillS
18 hours ago
8
This contrasts private and public sector insurance, but the two are orthogonal: one could purchase a private policy to "top up" the public one. The crux of the question (as I understand it) is why a polity would prohibit such a possibility.
– Jared Smith
18 hours ago
1
"Universal health insurance which is affordable for everyone can only work when the healthy people subsidize the people with chronic health problems." That is incorrect, for example in the UK it is funded from income tax so it is the wealthy subsidising those who would otherwise not be able to afford healthcare.
– user
17 hours ago
2
@user The UK is an example of a country which goes for mandatory health insurance for everyone. This is required for income-based insurance fees to work, because on an unregulated free market, private insurance providers would have no reason to charge people based on their income. So for high-income people, private insurance would likely be a far better deal in such a system. Again, all the "bad" customers go to the government and all the "good" customers go to the private insurances.
– Philipp♦
16 hours ago
3
This is only true if you could opt-out of the public healthcare
– Orangesandlemons
14 hours ago
7
7
I don't think the last point holds up. The UK has in effect mandatory health insurance (although the NHS is funded from general taxation / national insurance contributions, rather than as a specific health insurance charge), but there is still a pretty large private health sector for people who want to pay more for better treatment / shorter waiting lists. But that's kind of tangential to your main point.
– PhillS
18 hours ago
I don't think the last point holds up. The UK has in effect mandatory health insurance (although the NHS is funded from general taxation / national insurance contributions, rather than as a specific health insurance charge), but there is still a pretty large private health sector for people who want to pay more for better treatment / shorter waiting lists. But that's kind of tangential to your main point.
– PhillS
18 hours ago
8
8
This contrasts private and public sector insurance, but the two are orthogonal: one could purchase a private policy to "top up" the public one. The crux of the question (as I understand it) is why a polity would prohibit such a possibility.
– Jared Smith
18 hours ago
This contrasts private and public sector insurance, but the two are orthogonal: one could purchase a private policy to "top up" the public one. The crux of the question (as I understand it) is why a polity would prohibit such a possibility.
– Jared Smith
18 hours ago
1
1
"Universal health insurance which is affordable for everyone can only work when the healthy people subsidize the people with chronic health problems." That is incorrect, for example in the UK it is funded from income tax so it is the wealthy subsidising those who would otherwise not be able to afford healthcare.
– user
17 hours ago
"Universal health insurance which is affordable for everyone can only work when the healthy people subsidize the people with chronic health problems." That is incorrect, for example in the UK it is funded from income tax so it is the wealthy subsidising those who would otherwise not be able to afford healthcare.
– user
17 hours ago
2
2
@user The UK is an example of a country which goes for mandatory health insurance for everyone. This is required for income-based insurance fees to work, because on an unregulated free market, private insurance providers would have no reason to charge people based on their income. So for high-income people, private insurance would likely be a far better deal in such a system. Again, all the "bad" customers go to the government and all the "good" customers go to the private insurances.
– Philipp♦
16 hours ago
@user The UK is an example of a country which goes for mandatory health insurance for everyone. This is required for income-based insurance fees to work, because on an unregulated free market, private insurance providers would have no reason to charge people based on their income. So for high-income people, private insurance would likely be a far better deal in such a system. Again, all the "bad" customers go to the government and all the "good" customers go to the private insurances.
– Philipp♦
16 hours ago
3
3
This is only true if you could opt-out of the public healthcare
– Orangesandlemons
14 hours ago
This is only true if you could opt-out of the public healthcare
– Orangesandlemons
14 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
Universal healthcare systems can be harmed by competition from private healthcare, such as when the private companies pay more and make it difficult for the state system to recruit staff. It can also make it harder for national systems to buy medicine at reasonable prices, when manufacturers can rely on the private sector paying more and people desperate for it.
There are also issues of fairness, as when private treatment is available those who can afford it can bypass queues in the state system by getting specific procedures done privately, and then return to the state system when it suits them.
Another issue is the state picking up the bill for failures in the private sector, such as a recent incident in the UK where sub-standard breast implants fitted by a company that subsequently went bust had to be fixed at the taxpayer's expense.
5
While these are the justifications usually given, it's worth noting that they're false.
– Jared Smith
18 hours ago
8
@user lots of reasons: if the market for private insurance on top of e.g. the NHS is so large that it threatens the functioning of the universal system then the public system is obviously grossly inadequate. If a party is willing to pay more for a medicine, then the price will go up which will incentivize production (driving the price back down to equilibrium). Same for staff. "getting specific procedures done privately, and then return to the state system" what's wrong with that? They would have otherwise been done with public funds. Do you object to not having to pay for them?
– Jared Smith
17 hours ago
13
@JaredSmith your personal opinion is irrelevant, the questioner is asking what are the reasons people have, not how good you consider them to be.
– user
17 hours ago
6
@user has nothing to do with my personal opinion, that's just how economics works. And I totally agree with you that it answers the OP's question as stated (although I've voted to close the question as being pure speculation). I did not downvote your answer.
– Jared Smith
17 hours ago
7
@JaredSmith no, it's definitely your opinion.
– user
17 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
Universal healthcare systems can be harmed by competition from private healthcare, such as when the private companies pay more and make it difficult for the state system to recruit staff. It can also make it harder for national systems to buy medicine at reasonable prices, when manufacturers can rely on the private sector paying more and people desperate for it.
There are also issues of fairness, as when private treatment is available those who can afford it can bypass queues in the state system by getting specific procedures done privately, and then return to the state system when it suits them.
Another issue is the state picking up the bill for failures in the private sector, such as a recent incident in the UK where sub-standard breast implants fitted by a company that subsequently went bust had to be fixed at the taxpayer's expense.
5
While these are the justifications usually given, it's worth noting that they're false.
– Jared Smith
18 hours ago
8
@user lots of reasons: if the market for private insurance on top of e.g. the NHS is so large that it threatens the functioning of the universal system then the public system is obviously grossly inadequate. If a party is willing to pay more for a medicine, then the price will go up which will incentivize production (driving the price back down to equilibrium). Same for staff. "getting specific procedures done privately, and then return to the state system" what's wrong with that? They would have otherwise been done with public funds. Do you object to not having to pay for them?
– Jared Smith
17 hours ago
13
@JaredSmith your personal opinion is irrelevant, the questioner is asking what are the reasons people have, not how good you consider them to be.
– user
17 hours ago
6
@user has nothing to do with my personal opinion, that's just how economics works. And I totally agree with you that it answers the OP's question as stated (although I've voted to close the question as being pure speculation). I did not downvote your answer.
– Jared Smith
17 hours ago
7
@JaredSmith no, it's definitely your opinion.
– user
17 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
Universal healthcare systems can be harmed by competition from private healthcare, such as when the private companies pay more and make it difficult for the state system to recruit staff. It can also make it harder for national systems to buy medicine at reasonable prices, when manufacturers can rely on the private sector paying more and people desperate for it.
There are also issues of fairness, as when private treatment is available those who can afford it can bypass queues in the state system by getting specific procedures done privately, and then return to the state system when it suits them.
Another issue is the state picking up the bill for failures in the private sector, such as a recent incident in the UK where sub-standard breast implants fitted by a company that subsequently went bust had to be fixed at the taxpayer's expense.
Universal healthcare systems can be harmed by competition from private healthcare, such as when the private companies pay more and make it difficult for the state system to recruit staff. It can also make it harder for national systems to buy medicine at reasonable prices, when manufacturers can rely on the private sector paying more and people desperate for it.
There are also issues of fairness, as when private treatment is available those who can afford it can bypass queues in the state system by getting specific procedures done privately, and then return to the state system when it suits them.
Another issue is the state picking up the bill for failures in the private sector, such as a recent incident in the UK where sub-standard breast implants fitted by a company that subsequently went bust had to be fixed at the taxpayer's expense.
answered 19 hours ago
useruser
7,99421734
7,99421734
5
While these are the justifications usually given, it's worth noting that they're false.
– Jared Smith
18 hours ago
8
@user lots of reasons: if the market for private insurance on top of e.g. the NHS is so large that it threatens the functioning of the universal system then the public system is obviously grossly inadequate. If a party is willing to pay more for a medicine, then the price will go up which will incentivize production (driving the price back down to equilibrium). Same for staff. "getting specific procedures done privately, and then return to the state system" what's wrong with that? They would have otherwise been done with public funds. Do you object to not having to pay for them?
– Jared Smith
17 hours ago
13
@JaredSmith your personal opinion is irrelevant, the questioner is asking what are the reasons people have, not how good you consider them to be.
– user
17 hours ago
6
@user has nothing to do with my personal opinion, that's just how economics works. And I totally agree with you that it answers the OP's question as stated (although I've voted to close the question as being pure speculation). I did not downvote your answer.
– Jared Smith
17 hours ago
7
@JaredSmith no, it's definitely your opinion.
– user
17 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
5
While these are the justifications usually given, it's worth noting that they're false.
– Jared Smith
18 hours ago
8
@user lots of reasons: if the market for private insurance on top of e.g. the NHS is so large that it threatens the functioning of the universal system then the public system is obviously grossly inadequate. If a party is willing to pay more for a medicine, then the price will go up which will incentivize production (driving the price back down to equilibrium). Same for staff. "getting specific procedures done privately, and then return to the state system" what's wrong with that? They would have otherwise been done with public funds. Do you object to not having to pay for them?
– Jared Smith
17 hours ago
13
@JaredSmith your personal opinion is irrelevant, the questioner is asking what are the reasons people have, not how good you consider them to be.
– user
17 hours ago
6
@user has nothing to do with my personal opinion, that's just how economics works. And I totally agree with you that it answers the OP's question as stated (although I've voted to close the question as being pure speculation). I did not downvote your answer.
– Jared Smith
17 hours ago
7
@JaredSmith no, it's definitely your opinion.
– user
17 hours ago
5
5
While these are the justifications usually given, it's worth noting that they're false.
– Jared Smith
18 hours ago
While these are the justifications usually given, it's worth noting that they're false.
– Jared Smith
18 hours ago
8
8
@user lots of reasons: if the market for private insurance on top of e.g. the NHS is so large that it threatens the functioning of the universal system then the public system is obviously grossly inadequate. If a party is willing to pay more for a medicine, then the price will go up which will incentivize production (driving the price back down to equilibrium). Same for staff. "getting specific procedures done privately, and then return to the state system" what's wrong with that? They would have otherwise been done with public funds. Do you object to not having to pay for them?
– Jared Smith
17 hours ago
@user lots of reasons: if the market for private insurance on top of e.g. the NHS is so large that it threatens the functioning of the universal system then the public system is obviously grossly inadequate. If a party is willing to pay more for a medicine, then the price will go up which will incentivize production (driving the price back down to equilibrium). Same for staff. "getting specific procedures done privately, and then return to the state system" what's wrong with that? They would have otherwise been done with public funds. Do you object to not having to pay for them?
– Jared Smith
17 hours ago
13
13
@JaredSmith your personal opinion is irrelevant, the questioner is asking what are the reasons people have, not how good you consider them to be.
– user
17 hours ago
@JaredSmith your personal opinion is irrelevant, the questioner is asking what are the reasons people have, not how good you consider them to be.
– user
17 hours ago
6
6
@user has nothing to do with my personal opinion, that's just how economics works. And I totally agree with you that it answers the OP's question as stated (although I've voted to close the question as being pure speculation). I did not downvote your answer.
– Jared Smith
17 hours ago
@user has nothing to do with my personal opinion, that's just how economics works. And I totally agree with you that it answers the OP's question as stated (although I've voted to close the question as being pure speculation). I did not downvote your answer.
– Jared Smith
17 hours ago
7
7
@JaredSmith no, it's definitely your opinion.
– user
17 hours ago
@JaredSmith no, it's definitely your opinion.
– user
17 hours ago
|
show 6 more comments
One reason, which is not touched upon by other answers, is that private insurance coverage would increase health care costs for everyone, including those universally covered.
One of the major points of savings in a single-payer system is the reduced administrative overhead. People automatically think of the reduced overall overhead and elimination of redundancies for a single payer vs multiple insurance companies, but what has as much impact is the reduction in administrative staff and systems needed for health care providers to handle billing.
If you have a single payer, there are only one set of reimbursements, one method of coding and bundling procedure coding for insurance claims, one set of rules and prerequisites for allowable claims. For every insurer you add, you are adding the complexity of tracking a parallel system for the differences between insurers, and then the need to track which patients align with which sets of insurance rules, so the provider and the patient don't unexpectedly get stuck with a service that can't be paid for. This administrative overhead drives up the cost of all health care for that provider, and that is reflected in the billing rates the provider will charge to all patients.
So, if you have a system that is paid for by tax dollars, allowing private insurers, to a certain degree, would require all taxpayers taking on an added burden for the benefit of that private insurer, and not just the premium paying customers of that insurance company.
1
I don't see how this can be true. There will still be providers who only support a single insurer and they will undercut the providers who support more than one. A business can't engage in a practice that makes them less efficient and pass that cost on unless every business in that sector has to engage in that practice. If pretty much any private company could raise their prices without providing better services, they would. They don't need an excuse to do that.
– David Schwartz
9 hours ago
1
-1 because if this was posted on StackOverflow, I'd just respond with "that's what interfaces are for". You have a single set of specs that all insurances have to abide by, thus reducing overhead to nothing.
– user4012
8 hours ago
add a comment |
One reason, which is not touched upon by other answers, is that private insurance coverage would increase health care costs for everyone, including those universally covered.
One of the major points of savings in a single-payer system is the reduced administrative overhead. People automatically think of the reduced overall overhead and elimination of redundancies for a single payer vs multiple insurance companies, but what has as much impact is the reduction in administrative staff and systems needed for health care providers to handle billing.
If you have a single payer, there are only one set of reimbursements, one method of coding and bundling procedure coding for insurance claims, one set of rules and prerequisites for allowable claims. For every insurer you add, you are adding the complexity of tracking a parallel system for the differences between insurers, and then the need to track which patients align with which sets of insurance rules, so the provider and the patient don't unexpectedly get stuck with a service that can't be paid for. This administrative overhead drives up the cost of all health care for that provider, and that is reflected in the billing rates the provider will charge to all patients.
So, if you have a system that is paid for by tax dollars, allowing private insurers, to a certain degree, would require all taxpayers taking on an added burden for the benefit of that private insurer, and not just the premium paying customers of that insurance company.
1
I don't see how this can be true. There will still be providers who only support a single insurer and they will undercut the providers who support more than one. A business can't engage in a practice that makes them less efficient and pass that cost on unless every business in that sector has to engage in that practice. If pretty much any private company could raise their prices without providing better services, they would. They don't need an excuse to do that.
– David Schwartz
9 hours ago
1
-1 because if this was posted on StackOverflow, I'd just respond with "that's what interfaces are for". You have a single set of specs that all insurances have to abide by, thus reducing overhead to nothing.
– user4012
8 hours ago
add a comment |
One reason, which is not touched upon by other answers, is that private insurance coverage would increase health care costs for everyone, including those universally covered.
One of the major points of savings in a single-payer system is the reduced administrative overhead. People automatically think of the reduced overall overhead and elimination of redundancies for a single payer vs multiple insurance companies, but what has as much impact is the reduction in administrative staff and systems needed for health care providers to handle billing.
If you have a single payer, there are only one set of reimbursements, one method of coding and bundling procedure coding for insurance claims, one set of rules and prerequisites for allowable claims. For every insurer you add, you are adding the complexity of tracking a parallel system for the differences between insurers, and then the need to track which patients align with which sets of insurance rules, so the provider and the patient don't unexpectedly get stuck with a service that can't be paid for. This administrative overhead drives up the cost of all health care for that provider, and that is reflected in the billing rates the provider will charge to all patients.
So, if you have a system that is paid for by tax dollars, allowing private insurers, to a certain degree, would require all taxpayers taking on an added burden for the benefit of that private insurer, and not just the premium paying customers of that insurance company.
One reason, which is not touched upon by other answers, is that private insurance coverage would increase health care costs for everyone, including those universally covered.
One of the major points of savings in a single-payer system is the reduced administrative overhead. People automatically think of the reduced overall overhead and elimination of redundancies for a single payer vs multiple insurance companies, but what has as much impact is the reduction in administrative staff and systems needed for health care providers to handle billing.
If you have a single payer, there are only one set of reimbursements, one method of coding and bundling procedure coding for insurance claims, one set of rules and prerequisites for allowable claims. For every insurer you add, you are adding the complexity of tracking a parallel system for the differences between insurers, and then the need to track which patients align with which sets of insurance rules, so the provider and the patient don't unexpectedly get stuck with a service that can't be paid for. This administrative overhead drives up the cost of all health care for that provider, and that is reflected in the billing rates the provider will charge to all patients.
So, if you have a system that is paid for by tax dollars, allowing private insurers, to a certain degree, would require all taxpayers taking on an added burden for the benefit of that private insurer, and not just the premium paying customers of that insurance company.
answered 11 hours ago
PoloHoleSetPoloHoleSet
11.9k12857
11.9k12857
1
I don't see how this can be true. There will still be providers who only support a single insurer and they will undercut the providers who support more than one. A business can't engage in a practice that makes them less efficient and pass that cost on unless every business in that sector has to engage in that practice. If pretty much any private company could raise their prices without providing better services, they would. They don't need an excuse to do that.
– David Schwartz
9 hours ago
1
-1 because if this was posted on StackOverflow, I'd just respond with "that's what interfaces are for". You have a single set of specs that all insurances have to abide by, thus reducing overhead to nothing.
– user4012
8 hours ago
add a comment |
1
I don't see how this can be true. There will still be providers who only support a single insurer and they will undercut the providers who support more than one. A business can't engage in a practice that makes them less efficient and pass that cost on unless every business in that sector has to engage in that practice. If pretty much any private company could raise their prices without providing better services, they would. They don't need an excuse to do that.
– David Schwartz
9 hours ago
1
-1 because if this was posted on StackOverflow, I'd just respond with "that's what interfaces are for". You have a single set of specs that all insurances have to abide by, thus reducing overhead to nothing.
– user4012
8 hours ago
1
1
I don't see how this can be true. There will still be providers who only support a single insurer and they will undercut the providers who support more than one. A business can't engage in a practice that makes them less efficient and pass that cost on unless every business in that sector has to engage in that practice. If pretty much any private company could raise their prices without providing better services, they would. They don't need an excuse to do that.
– David Schwartz
9 hours ago
I don't see how this can be true. There will still be providers who only support a single insurer and they will undercut the providers who support more than one. A business can't engage in a practice that makes them less efficient and pass that cost on unless every business in that sector has to engage in that practice. If pretty much any private company could raise their prices without providing better services, they would. They don't need an excuse to do that.
– David Schwartz
9 hours ago
1
1
-1 because if this was posted on StackOverflow, I'd just respond with "that's what interfaces are for". You have a single set of specs that all insurances have to abide by, thus reducing overhead to nothing.
– user4012
8 hours ago
-1 because if this was posted on StackOverflow, I'd just respond with "that's what interfaces are for". You have a single set of specs that all insurances have to abide by, thus reducing overhead to nothing.
– user4012
8 hours ago
add a comment |
I think the law doesn't regulate (or only indirectly regulates) the insurance providers.
The main point is that it regulates the service providers (i.e. the health care providers, e.g. doctors).
I think the law is that you (a health care provider) are legally not allowed to charge privately (e.g. to charge a patient or a private insurance company) for any type of service (e.g. surgery) that would be paid for by the government's universal health insurance (which includes any or every kind of mainstream health care).
And the rationale for that restriction is that they (the government i.e. the people) don't want a "two-tier" health system, where rich people (and/or people with private insurance) get better health care, and other people get worse health care.
I think a Canadian Health Minister (i.e. a politician) once said that in the States anyone can get however much health care each person can afford, whereas in Canada everyone can get however much they need.
I think I heard that leads to cases where e.g. a professional athlete goes to the States to get a soft-tissue injury looked at quickly (and at private cost), but generally I don't think that (i.e. cross-border shopping) is a big factor.
Private insurance in Canada is allowed and available for what's not covered by the universal (provincial) plans -- e.g. prescriptions, possibly prostheses too (it's services that are paid for), dental care, eye glasses, maybe physical rehabilitation, pay your lost wages, travel insurance, that kind of thing, maybe a private room in a hospital -- often a (taxable) "benefit" paid by the employer. But I think you can't buy insurance to pay for surgery or to visit a family doctor, because those costs are covered by the government plans.
Or these kinds of costs (which aren't covered for everyone) may be covered by "welfare" (e.g. means-tested) for people with no or low incomes, or who have extraordinarily high prescription drug costs.
It may be (I don't know) that the amount a service provider (e.g. a doctor) can charge is lower, too, that it might be otherwise -- since the government has a monopoly on paying them.
Wikipedia (however I'm not sure that this tells the whole story):
Six of Canada's ten provinces used to ban private insurance for publicly insured services to inhibit queue jumping and so preserve fairness in the health care system. In 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that in Quebec, such bans are unconstitutional if the waiting period for care is excessively long. However, this ruling only applies within the Province of Quebec. A second court challenge is currently underway to determine whether the prohibition of private parallel health care violates the patients' right to life, liberty, and security under Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The criticisms section is long -- but perhaps that's failing to talk about the good news; or the good news is easily summarised:
Health cards are issued by provincial health ministries to individuals who enroll for the program in the province and everyone receives the same level of care. There is no need for a variety of plans because virtually all essential basic care is covered, including maternity
I don't think the service is much worse than elsewhere, and think that it's more-or-less comparable to other developed countries -- but is perhaps unusual (compared to e.g. the UK or France) in not even permitting private health care.
add a comment |
I think the law doesn't regulate (or only indirectly regulates) the insurance providers.
The main point is that it regulates the service providers (i.e. the health care providers, e.g. doctors).
I think the law is that you (a health care provider) are legally not allowed to charge privately (e.g. to charge a patient or a private insurance company) for any type of service (e.g. surgery) that would be paid for by the government's universal health insurance (which includes any or every kind of mainstream health care).
And the rationale for that restriction is that they (the government i.e. the people) don't want a "two-tier" health system, where rich people (and/or people with private insurance) get better health care, and other people get worse health care.
I think a Canadian Health Minister (i.e. a politician) once said that in the States anyone can get however much health care each person can afford, whereas in Canada everyone can get however much they need.
I think I heard that leads to cases where e.g. a professional athlete goes to the States to get a soft-tissue injury looked at quickly (and at private cost), but generally I don't think that (i.e. cross-border shopping) is a big factor.
Private insurance in Canada is allowed and available for what's not covered by the universal (provincial) plans -- e.g. prescriptions, possibly prostheses too (it's services that are paid for), dental care, eye glasses, maybe physical rehabilitation, pay your lost wages, travel insurance, that kind of thing, maybe a private room in a hospital -- often a (taxable) "benefit" paid by the employer. But I think you can't buy insurance to pay for surgery or to visit a family doctor, because those costs are covered by the government plans.
Or these kinds of costs (which aren't covered for everyone) may be covered by "welfare" (e.g. means-tested) for people with no or low incomes, or who have extraordinarily high prescription drug costs.
It may be (I don't know) that the amount a service provider (e.g. a doctor) can charge is lower, too, that it might be otherwise -- since the government has a monopoly on paying them.
Wikipedia (however I'm not sure that this tells the whole story):
Six of Canada's ten provinces used to ban private insurance for publicly insured services to inhibit queue jumping and so preserve fairness in the health care system. In 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that in Quebec, such bans are unconstitutional if the waiting period for care is excessively long. However, this ruling only applies within the Province of Quebec. A second court challenge is currently underway to determine whether the prohibition of private parallel health care violates the patients' right to life, liberty, and security under Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The criticisms section is long -- but perhaps that's failing to talk about the good news; or the good news is easily summarised:
Health cards are issued by provincial health ministries to individuals who enroll for the program in the province and everyone receives the same level of care. There is no need for a variety of plans because virtually all essential basic care is covered, including maternity
I don't think the service is much worse than elsewhere, and think that it's more-or-less comparable to other developed countries -- but is perhaps unusual (compared to e.g. the UK or France) in not even permitting private health care.
add a comment |
I think the law doesn't regulate (or only indirectly regulates) the insurance providers.
The main point is that it regulates the service providers (i.e. the health care providers, e.g. doctors).
I think the law is that you (a health care provider) are legally not allowed to charge privately (e.g. to charge a patient or a private insurance company) for any type of service (e.g. surgery) that would be paid for by the government's universal health insurance (which includes any or every kind of mainstream health care).
And the rationale for that restriction is that they (the government i.e. the people) don't want a "two-tier" health system, where rich people (and/or people with private insurance) get better health care, and other people get worse health care.
I think a Canadian Health Minister (i.e. a politician) once said that in the States anyone can get however much health care each person can afford, whereas in Canada everyone can get however much they need.
I think I heard that leads to cases where e.g. a professional athlete goes to the States to get a soft-tissue injury looked at quickly (and at private cost), but generally I don't think that (i.e. cross-border shopping) is a big factor.
Private insurance in Canada is allowed and available for what's not covered by the universal (provincial) plans -- e.g. prescriptions, possibly prostheses too (it's services that are paid for), dental care, eye glasses, maybe physical rehabilitation, pay your lost wages, travel insurance, that kind of thing, maybe a private room in a hospital -- often a (taxable) "benefit" paid by the employer. But I think you can't buy insurance to pay for surgery or to visit a family doctor, because those costs are covered by the government plans.
Or these kinds of costs (which aren't covered for everyone) may be covered by "welfare" (e.g. means-tested) for people with no or low incomes, or who have extraordinarily high prescription drug costs.
It may be (I don't know) that the amount a service provider (e.g. a doctor) can charge is lower, too, that it might be otherwise -- since the government has a monopoly on paying them.
Wikipedia (however I'm not sure that this tells the whole story):
Six of Canada's ten provinces used to ban private insurance for publicly insured services to inhibit queue jumping and so preserve fairness in the health care system. In 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that in Quebec, such bans are unconstitutional if the waiting period for care is excessively long. However, this ruling only applies within the Province of Quebec. A second court challenge is currently underway to determine whether the prohibition of private parallel health care violates the patients' right to life, liberty, and security under Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The criticisms section is long -- but perhaps that's failing to talk about the good news; or the good news is easily summarised:
Health cards are issued by provincial health ministries to individuals who enroll for the program in the province and everyone receives the same level of care. There is no need for a variety of plans because virtually all essential basic care is covered, including maternity
I don't think the service is much worse than elsewhere, and think that it's more-or-less comparable to other developed countries -- but is perhaps unusual (compared to e.g. the UK or France) in not even permitting private health care.
I think the law doesn't regulate (or only indirectly regulates) the insurance providers.
The main point is that it regulates the service providers (i.e. the health care providers, e.g. doctors).
I think the law is that you (a health care provider) are legally not allowed to charge privately (e.g. to charge a patient or a private insurance company) for any type of service (e.g. surgery) that would be paid for by the government's universal health insurance (which includes any or every kind of mainstream health care).
And the rationale for that restriction is that they (the government i.e. the people) don't want a "two-tier" health system, where rich people (and/or people with private insurance) get better health care, and other people get worse health care.
I think a Canadian Health Minister (i.e. a politician) once said that in the States anyone can get however much health care each person can afford, whereas in Canada everyone can get however much they need.
I think I heard that leads to cases where e.g. a professional athlete goes to the States to get a soft-tissue injury looked at quickly (and at private cost), but generally I don't think that (i.e. cross-border shopping) is a big factor.
Private insurance in Canada is allowed and available for what's not covered by the universal (provincial) plans -- e.g. prescriptions, possibly prostheses too (it's services that are paid for), dental care, eye glasses, maybe physical rehabilitation, pay your lost wages, travel insurance, that kind of thing, maybe a private room in a hospital -- often a (taxable) "benefit" paid by the employer. But I think you can't buy insurance to pay for surgery or to visit a family doctor, because those costs are covered by the government plans.
Or these kinds of costs (which aren't covered for everyone) may be covered by "welfare" (e.g. means-tested) for people with no or low incomes, or who have extraordinarily high prescription drug costs.
It may be (I don't know) that the amount a service provider (e.g. a doctor) can charge is lower, too, that it might be otherwise -- since the government has a monopoly on paying them.
Wikipedia (however I'm not sure that this tells the whole story):
Six of Canada's ten provinces used to ban private insurance for publicly insured services to inhibit queue jumping and so preserve fairness in the health care system. In 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that in Quebec, such bans are unconstitutional if the waiting period for care is excessively long. However, this ruling only applies within the Province of Quebec. A second court challenge is currently underway to determine whether the prohibition of private parallel health care violates the patients' right to life, liberty, and security under Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The criticisms section is long -- but perhaps that's failing to talk about the good news; or the good news is easily summarised:
Health cards are issued by provincial health ministries to individuals who enroll for the program in the province and everyone receives the same level of care. There is no need for a variety of plans because virtually all essential basic care is covered, including maternity
I don't think the service is much worse than elsewhere, and think that it's more-or-less comparable to other developed countries -- but is perhaps unusual (compared to e.g. the UK or France) in not even permitting private health care.
edited 4 hours ago
answered 5 hours ago
ChrisWChrisW
1,10319
1,10319
add a comment |
add a comment |
If you do not have the laws in place to deal with private health care, the simple approach is to ban it altogether.
Private health care can do plenty of bad things unless you have the laws to prevent them. To name just a few:
- Only accept young, healthy, male, non smoking, and generally low risk clients. This increases the average costs of the remaining population, all of whom happen to be on public health care.
- Reject renewal for sick clients. This pushes sick people to public health care, increasing cost of public health care.
- Refuse to pay for certain expensive treatments. This pushes people requiring expensive treatments to public health care, increasing cost of public health care.
- Bad faith advertising.
And there's much more than just these. All of these exploits have to be addressed with laws and control mechanisms.
These are compulsions not restrictions- compelling insurance to remove their restrictions.
– user2617804
3 hours ago
add a comment |
If you do not have the laws in place to deal with private health care, the simple approach is to ban it altogether.
Private health care can do plenty of bad things unless you have the laws to prevent them. To name just a few:
- Only accept young, healthy, male, non smoking, and generally low risk clients. This increases the average costs of the remaining population, all of whom happen to be on public health care.
- Reject renewal for sick clients. This pushes sick people to public health care, increasing cost of public health care.
- Refuse to pay for certain expensive treatments. This pushes people requiring expensive treatments to public health care, increasing cost of public health care.
- Bad faith advertising.
And there's much more than just these. All of these exploits have to be addressed with laws and control mechanisms.
These are compulsions not restrictions- compelling insurance to remove their restrictions.
– user2617804
3 hours ago
add a comment |
If you do not have the laws in place to deal with private health care, the simple approach is to ban it altogether.
Private health care can do plenty of bad things unless you have the laws to prevent them. To name just a few:
- Only accept young, healthy, male, non smoking, and generally low risk clients. This increases the average costs of the remaining population, all of whom happen to be on public health care.
- Reject renewal for sick clients. This pushes sick people to public health care, increasing cost of public health care.
- Refuse to pay for certain expensive treatments. This pushes people requiring expensive treatments to public health care, increasing cost of public health care.
- Bad faith advertising.
And there's much more than just these. All of these exploits have to be addressed with laws and control mechanisms.
If you do not have the laws in place to deal with private health care, the simple approach is to ban it altogether.
Private health care can do plenty of bad things unless you have the laws to prevent them. To name just a few:
- Only accept young, healthy, male, non smoking, and generally low risk clients. This increases the average costs of the remaining population, all of whom happen to be on public health care.
- Reject renewal for sick clients. This pushes sick people to public health care, increasing cost of public health care.
- Refuse to pay for certain expensive treatments. This pushes people requiring expensive treatments to public health care, increasing cost of public health care.
- Bad faith advertising.
And there's much more than just these. All of these exploits have to be addressed with laws and control mechanisms.
answered 7 hours ago
PeterPeter
3,2201815
3,2201815
These are compulsions not restrictions- compelling insurance to remove their restrictions.
– user2617804
3 hours ago
add a comment |
These are compulsions not restrictions- compelling insurance to remove their restrictions.
– user2617804
3 hours ago
These are compulsions not restrictions- compelling insurance to remove their restrictions.
– user2617804
3 hours ago
These are compulsions not restrictions- compelling insurance to remove their restrictions.
– user2617804
3 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f39277%2fwhy-restrict-private-health-insurance%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
17
Can you give an example of such a country?
– Thomas
23 hours ago
3
I'm voting to close, as I know of no such country, meaning this is pure speculation. In Canada AFAIK (and a quick google search confirms) private insurance is routinely purchased for employees by their employers.
– Jared Smith
17 hours ago
4
Downvoted: unless there's any example given, the question is flawed. I'm not aware of any country which prohibits private health insurance. Canada doesn't: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Canada#Private_sector. Looks to me like the question should be "why regulate private health insurance", that's quite different.
– Erwan
17 hours ago
4
To rescue the question: Maybe OP had in mind that in some countries, the government-run insurance is mandatory for everyone (e.g. the "Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung" in Germany, or the NHS in the UK - you don't have to use it, but you have to pay). That means it is prohibited / not possible to have private health insurance instead of the public insurance (though additional insurance, e.g. for better care, is still allowed). Maybe that is what OP thought of? @Colin: Could you edit to clarify ?
– sleske
15 hours ago
1
@Graipher: Yes, I know, but I didn't want to muddle things further. I think one could still argue that in Germany, completely private insurance is "restricted" (unless you earn a lot or are self-employed).
– sleske
15 hours ago