- Edited
Sneakylong I hear what you're saying. As it stands now, we are still giving health care to everybody, even the uninsured. If you show up at an ED with an inflamed appendix, a surgeon will remove it for you, even if you don't have insurance. So it's not like we're tossing people back onto the streets. And yes, other people are paying for those procedures/hospitalizations even in today's system.
Tinker is right that costs are out of control. Surgeons, radiologists, dermatologists, and some other specialties are particularly overpaid. The system has been set up to monetarily reward procedures and to penalize problem-solving and care of complicated problems that require a lot of thinking. I could make more money doing nothing but punch biopsies (which a trained monkey could do) than I can working in my subspecialty. That makes no sense to me at all. But it is what it is.
Maybe it would be better to have a single-payer system, but only if it started by getting rid of the ridiculous financial inequalities among the various specialties/subspecialties. There should not be physicians who make 4-5 times my salary, given that I am a physician with 4 years of med school, 3 years of residency, 3 years of general practice, 3 years of subspecialty training, and now a total of 29 years of practice, and I'm a full professor, to boot.
The other thing a single-payer system would have to do is eliminate the waste that is currently tied up in insurance companies. My concern is that the government, in general, tends to operate things fairly inefficiently (witness the DMV). Over the years I've practiced in a lot of hospitals; the worst one I ever saw was a VA hospital. If a single-payer system involved bringing the entire health care industry down to that level, it would be an unmitigated disaster. People would be begging for insurance companies to come back.