(10-30-2018, 09:56 PM)MalabarJag Wrote:

(10-30-2018, 12:46 PM)mikesez Wrote: If you get ten random people in a group, four of the ten will have a cancer diagnosis at some point in their life.  But no one knows which four.  So that is one of life's uncertainties.  Are you trying to say that all of the ten people should be saving up money as if a cancer diagnosis is coming?

That's exactly what insurance should cover, catastrophic events.

Right now health 'insurance' pays for routine office visits. This is comparable to having car insurance cover oil changes, or home insurance covering lawn mowing.

If patients were billed directly for routine visits they would become a lot cheaper because people would shop for better prices. With the current health 'insurance' method there's no incentive for one doctor to charge less than any other doctor.

That's a legitimate complaint and I used to say things like that in these conversations.
It makes sense.  It is plausible.  But the evidence isn't there to say that this is our actual problem.
First, doctors do compete to see who will get on which plan and not all plans reimburse all doctors the same.  I would not call it patient centered, but if there is a doctor that patients prefer, they do get some leverage in the negotiations with insurers.  
Second, the cure to this problem is worse.  It has been demonstrated over and over that the high deductible plans cause people to wait too long to get treatment and needlessly risk their lives.  It's been demonstrated that they make us significantly less healthy without singificantly reducing overall health spending.

---