Would public health insurance be beneficial to doctors and hospitals? |
Public insurance would be beneficial for doctors and hospitals because everyone would have coverage.
Public health insurance would be beneficial to doctors and hospitals because everyone would have coverage. Doctors would be guaranteed payment and wouldn't have to donate time or services to those who can't afford health insurance. There would probably be a period of adjustment while prices stabilized, but eventually all doctors could charge a fair amount and be guaranteed payment. Whereas, now, there are millions who need health care but can't pay. They go to emergency rooms, receive treatment, and are never seen again.
Posted by: 5c0rPi0nRodPublic health insurance would be extremely beneficial for doctors and hospitals.
The current health system places a severe burden on hospitals as a result of the uninsured being permitted to show up at a hospital to be treated without money or insurance. The hospital is obligated to treat the person and then is left without repayment for the services rendered. A system which includes public health insurance will allow hospitals to ensure that they will be paid, at least on some level, for every patient that walks through the door. When every patient is able to pay for the services received, the system will work better.
Posted by: 5h4rdWorthI support public health insurance, due to the stability it offers.
With public health insurance, everyone would have access to doctors and hospitals. Those who have enough money to maintain their doctors would not be effected, so these medical services would not change. If more people have health insurance, this means that more doctors and other medical professionals would get work more often.
Posted by: NineLester37I think public health insurance would be beneficial to doctors and hospitals because they would never have to turn away a patient.
With public health insurance, doctors and hospitals would never have to turn away a patient. Meaning, more money in their pocket, and more guaranteed clients. There would be no more frustration with insurance companies not covering certain procedures.
Posted by: LorenaHI agree that public health insurance would benefit doctors and hospitals; more compensation for services would be received.
Uninsured individuals are treated everyday by doctors and hospitals. Emergency Rooms are used as medical clinics by people who cannot be seen in a doctor's office because of inability to pay. Additional cost is incurred through efforts to collect from individuals who are unable to pay. The current cost of health insurance excludes a large number of individuals. Public insurance would provide payment that would otherwise never be received.
Posted by: ExclusiveIsrael68I think it would be beneficial to have public health insurance because, in many ways, it would benefit hospitals and their physicians.
The government is the leading 3rd party insurance payee in the United States. But if a person is not on Medicare or Medicaid and does not have private health insurance, then they are uninsured. Being uninsured usually will mean hospitals and physicians will still see the uninsured patient. But those bills go unpaid, or take long periods of time to get paid back, and those unpaid services can hurt the hospitals and the pay of the physicians. Having public health insurance would lower the hospital debt and help provide a service to the general public that is uninsured for a lower price.
Posted by: AmuckRory54Doctors and hospitals both want compensation for their care and reduced red tape, and public insurance holds promise of providing both.
There is reason to think that a public insurance option, with its large customer base and standardized treatment options, would streamline administrative processes (it's my sense that Medicare, one such program, is simpler in its paperwork demands and entails less administrative delay for physicians than private insurance); more fundamentally, access to public insurance for all patients would ensure that each time a physician or hospital provided care, the provider would be compensated for the effort expended. Currently, care is provided in many cases regardless of the ability to pay, which is as it should be, of course. But this happens via an inefficient system that jacks up premiums for those with insurance and apparently compensates providers less for their efforts in these cases than would otherwise be the case.
Posted by: M4I4cFeIinePublic health insurance would allow doctors and hospitals to better focus on patient care.
Public health insurance would be a two-edged sword for health care providers, but ultimately, would allow them to better focus on patient care. There would be downsides, such as lopsided negotiating power, to dealing with a monolithic government insurance system. However, doctors and hospitals would save a tremendous amount of time and effort now spent negotiating with, and submitting paperwork to, multiple insurers. Providers also would be able to treat all patients the same, rather than worrying about which set of procedures a particular patient's insurance company will or won't cover.
Posted by: LuciaLPublic health insurance would be beneficial to doctors and hospitals because everyone would have insurance and more of the costs of healthcare would be paid.
If there were public health insurance for everyone we would all be insured. While the doctors and hospitals would probably be able to charge less for many procedures, this would not negatively affect revenues, because rather than burden the wealthy and insured with costs to make up for those who do not pay, all would pay for procedures. In many cases, whatever insurance pays is almost all that the doctors or hospitals can get. Currently, charges have gotten ridiculously high to offset the huge amounts which do not get paid with insurance. I think overall, the doctors and hospitals would have higher revenues if public health insurance insured everyone.
Posted by: 5kyErtoI think the public insurance option does favor doctors and hospitals, because more people with insured people means more payments for doctors and hospitals.
I can only think that the public insurance option would benefit doctors and hospitals because it would help to get more people insured and if more people are insured then there should be more payments to doctors and hospitals. They should be able to reduce that amount they lose from write offs and collections fees. Plus if people are insured they are more likely to visit the doctor or hospital which should result in an increase in business and more profits.
Posted by: TasticBran
No, public healthcare would not be beneficial to doctors and hospitals because they would not be able to charge what ever they want for their services.
If everyone had the same insurance and paid the same amount of money for a medical procedure doctors and hospitals would loose an important source of income. Like a bad mechanic a hospital makes most of its money with after estimate mark ups being tacked onto your bill. If there is public health insurance it would be a lot harder to charge the insane fees for a simple X-ray or check up that doctors can get away with now.
Posted by: H_BairdPublic health insurance would be detrimental to doctors and hospitals.
Doctors offices and hospitals already have to spend a lot of time dealing with insurance companies to get their payments. Often claims have to be resubmitted so that they can be paid accurately. This causes many hours of lost time, wasted resources, and money that could be better used elsewhere. As a result, many providers will not accept certain insurance companies. Some even won't accept medicare. Public health insurance would create a huge bureaucracy which would only make the problem worse. Doctors and hospitals need to spend less time dealing with insurance and more time tending to patients.
Posted by: balam49Public health insurance would not benefit doctors and hospitals because they would lose money.
Once health care is available to anyone for free, the doctors and hospitals will lose a lot of money. Anyone will go to the doctor for any ailment, whether it's important or not. Even non-US citizens will be able to go see the doctor. This will not only waste doctors' and hospitals' time, but it will also drain resources and supplies.
When health care is free, who will want to be a doctor anymore? They won't get paid what they deserve but yet they'll be working twice as hard.
Public health care is a terrible idea and should never be issued in a country that doesn't provide free handouts!Posted by: SheIdChunkytry finding a medicaid dentist
Medicaid has cost controls. The result is that doctors are paid less than half what it costs to care for a patient, from their time to rent to bureaucratic fees and records management. The result of this is that few doctors accept Medicaid. Children have died of dental abscessed because there were no Medicaid doctors taking new patients. Now multiple this disaster across all medical specialists and for all patients. Unless we make doctors slaves who work for free (and how bad will your care be, then?), we cannot solve the cost of healthcare by telling doctors to work for even less - which is all government does. Cutting fees to doctors has been the government decision in Medicaid, Medicare, and RomneyCare (Massachusetts public option). In ALL cases, doctors dropped out instead of working for peanuts, and patients found too few doctors to provide care. AND costs went up to pay for bureaucrats. Public health insurance hurts everyone but government bureaucrats.
Posted by: Pir4AndPublic health insurance would not be beneficial to doctors and hospitals, because our government's track record of running these kinds of programs is very poor.
I believe public health insurance would be disastrous to doctors and hospitals. Government programs have consistently proved to be unsustainable, whether it be through insufficient funds or mismanagement. Doctors and hospitals would be unfairly burdened with the bureaucratic red tape that accompanies all federal programs.
Posted by: erikschrodyIt could, but it doesn't.
When the government interferes too much, those who are in the position to be profitable don't like it. And, with an insurance option this would happen. The physicians would resent what they would have to do and how much the government is willing to reimburse them for doing it. It doesn't necessarily have to be this way, if everyone's point of view could be considered.
Posted by: MohaI0v35I don't think it would be especially beneficial for doctors or hospitals.
I don't know that public health insurance would be beneficial for doctors or hospitals, necessarily. I think the idea of a plan for public health insurance is to benefit the general population so that they can get insurance and receive medical treatment and not be charged the exorbitant amounts that doctors and hospitals are free to charge people who don't have insurance.
Posted by: PinkMychEquality in health insurance would not benefit doctors, so there needs to be room for private health insurance.
I believe in a lassez-faire approach to health insurance. If every doctor was paid the same, then why would he want to go to a more prestigious school for his education? You can not pay all doctors with public health insurance, because the quality of care would diminish greatly. If you want quality, you have to allow health insurance to be private, not public.
Posted by: IntelligentLuis84Health Insurance for the Un-insured will cause Doctors to decline patients
If everyone in the United States had health insurance then the doctors will be limited too how many patients they have. They couldn't treat them all equal if they don't have the time to give all of them good check-ups. They will be stressed and have too much on their hands and decline people with health insurance.
Posted by: Anonymous