Quantcast

SINGLE PAYER. THE ANSWER TO OUR HEALTH CARE PROBLEMS. Single payer health system: Pros and cons

ὤTṻnde΄ӂ 2010/12/31 00:31:32
You!
Add Photos & Videos



One option to restructure our nation's health care system is one that has been utilized in many industrialized nations, but is not being considered in the United States: that is the single payer health system. It is one in which all citizens pay taxes for health care services provided by the government to every man, woman, and child. It is the system that has been employed in Canada, and most European countries; all of which have health care systems that are ranked higher by the World Health Organization than that in the United States. The single payer system has been advocated by the progressive part of the Democratic Party, while being decried as "socialism" by conservative Republicans. As with any type of planned organization, the single payer plan has its pros and cons.

There are six "pros" to adopting a single payer system. First of all, there is guaranteed health care for all citizens regardless of social or economic status. Second, physicians will be free to practice medicine without having to submit complex billing statements that require a staff of office personnel. Third, physicians may actually be rewarded for providing preventative care. In Great Britain, for example, physicians actually receive bonuses for succeeding in getting their patients to quit smoking or lose weight! Fourth, the cost of providing care will be substantially reduced because there would be no profit motive. Corporate executives would not exist who would otherwise draw massive salaries and bonuses, or concern themselves with maximizing profits for shareholders. Fifth, no citizen would be denied health care because of pre-existing medical conditions, nor worry about reaching a cap on insurance coverage. Sixth, there would be no insurance premiums. The increase in taxes would be significantly lower for those who are paying for costly health insurance, which currently runs over twelve thousand dollars a year per family.

Now for the "cons" to the single payer system. First, critics of the single payer system bring the increased government bureaucracy needed to administer this program. If this plan is just an expansion of Medicare to cover those under the age of sixty-five, then the system is already in place. Second, physicians would be salaried government employees. According to the British physician interviewed by Michael Moore in the movie "Sicko", that would be catastrophic. You see, he ONLY earned just under two hundred thousand dollars a year, and lived with his wife and children in a million dollar home. He didn't have to worry about billing patients, and even received bonuses for achieving successful outcomes, as enabling a patient to quit smoking. (Maybe this isn't much of a con, after all!). Finally, according to ultra-conservative commentators as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, single-payer health care is evil and against everything America stands for, because it is socialized medicine; as if it will lead our nation into becoming a communist dictatorship!

There seems to be many pros to single payer health care. The biggest con, however, is trying to associate it with a term many people don't even seem to understand: socialism. If health care isn't to be considered as a right, and only for those who can afford it, then the notion of health care for all citizens would be a repulsive thought. If that is socialism, then our society really does have a problem!
http://www.helium.com/items/1565315-pros-and-cons-of-single-p...
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Philo-Publius 2010/12/31 01:43:07
    Single payer has ALWAYS been the best alternative to what we have now.
    Philo-Publius
    +4
    We need H.R. 676 NOW : Universal Medicare for all, financed by a small payroll tax not much greater than we pay now for Medicare... and actually money-saving across the board - no co-pays, no deductibles... full dental, vision and even mental health care included, cradle to grave, for every single American. And the icing on the cake? It retains a COMPLETELY free-market system within the framework of public funding.

    ObamaCare... overall, it's a good step forward. It has its flaws. I was as reluctant as Dennis Kucinich over it, but would have voted yea also, in the end. This individual mandate to purchase insurance is a monstrosity which seems only to have been incorporated to placate certain politicians in their quest to balance the profit sheets of the large insurance corporations. Please forgive the audio quality, but I implore all Americans to listen to Representative Kucinich's short take on what is actually going on in the health care industry. This is frightening, and the numbers don't lie. As Kucinich states, "Almost 31% of the spending that goes for health care goes for the for-profit system... we're already PAYING for a single-payer plan, we're just not getting it!"

    For-profit is wonderful, when we're talking about building cars, manufacturing better consumer goods, ...
    We need H.R. 676 NOW: Universal Medicare for all, financed by a small payroll tax not much greater than we pay now for Medicare... and actually money-saving across the board - no co-pays, no deductibles... full dental, vision and even mental health care included, cradle to grave, for every single American. And the icing on the cake? It retains a COMPLETELY free-market system within the framework of public funding.

    ObamaCare... overall, it's a good step forward. It has its flaws. I was as reluctant as Dennis Kucinich over it, but would have voted yea also, in the end. This individual mandate to purchase insurance is a monstrosity which seems only to have been incorporated to placate certain politicians in their quest to balance the profit sheets of the large insurance corporations. Please forgive the audio quality, but I implore all Americans to listen to Representative Kucinich's short take on what is actually going on in the health care industry. This is frightening, and the numbers don't lie. As Kucinich states, "Almost 31% of the spending that goes for health care goes for the for-profit system... we're already PAYING for a single-payer plan, we're just not getting it!"

    For-profit is wonderful, when we're talking about building cars, manufacturing better consumer goods, or delivering a package on-time... but when it comes to something so basic as a human being's life, their pain and suffering, seeing to it that no person is ever deprived of something so basic as treatment of their bodies, regardless of financial statuses, which fluctuate greatly (and for the simple trade-off of eliminating the for-profit role in it, to stand up for PEOPLE over profit)... this is an idea whose time has come.
    (more)

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • luvguins 2011/01/08 19:54:29
    The pros of Single Payer are more numerous and a better option.
    luvguins
    Conservatives will never buy single payer because it will require more taxation, and they have no interest in covering the poorer. Plus where would the GOP get all those campaign donations they get now from health insurance companies and big Pharma. Health care now is corrupt capitalism at it's worst.

    The problem is that everyone (doctors, hospitals, health insurance, big Pharma) and their lobbyists want to keep the status quo. So Congress listens to them so no one has the grit to buck those generous campaign donations they provide, and do the right thing. The outrage toward Obamacare or Anycare change proves that. Single payer or Medicare for all would mean that all those entities would have to negotiate to decrease their current inflated prices, and oh, the horrors of that for them. No more $30,000.00 for the cardiac surgeon, plus $100,000.00 for the hospital for a cardiac bypass operation. No more $3000.00 for a MRI when the machine has been paid for times over. No more obscene drug prices here when they are 60% less in Canada. Get my drift? Obamacare was a landmark try, but is lame without the public option and all the amendment tries made by the GOP to stymie addressing all those entities ripping us off. Isn't it interesting when the uninsured get aggressive and negoti...
    Conservatives will never buy single payer because it will require more taxation, and they have no interest in covering the poorer. Plus where would the GOP get all those campaign donations they get now from health insurance companies and big Pharma. Health care now is corrupt capitalism at it's worst.

    The problem is that everyone (doctors, hospitals, health insurance, big Pharma) and their lobbyists want to keep the status quo. So Congress listens to them so no one has the grit to buck those generous campaign donations they provide, and do the right thing. The outrage toward Obamacare or Anycare change proves that. Single payer or Medicare for all would mean that all those entities would have to negotiate to decrease their current inflated prices, and oh, the horrors of that for them. No more $30,000.00 for the cardiac surgeon, plus $100,000.00 for the hospital for a cardiac bypass operation. No more $3000.00 for a MRI when the machine has been paid for times over. No more obscene drug prices here when they are 60% less in Canada. Get my drift? Obamacare was a landmark try, but is lame without the public option and all the amendment tries made by the GOP to stymie addressing all those entities ripping us off. Isn't it interesting when the uninsured get aggressive and negotiate themselves about procedure costs how the price drops, and the doctors and hospitals accept the lower price? It is because the doctors and hospitals set higher prices just to get 1/3 of the charges from the insurance companies. That means there is NO real truth in pricing for health care which is really needed. Now Medicare and Medicade attempts to do this, and doctors and hospitals begrudgingly accept their lower payments. These should be made a bit higher, and permanently set to keep physicians from opting out of the contracts they have to sign. The bottom line is that until the greed in keeping the status quo is changed neither single payer, Obamacare, nor a GOP plan (which I have yet to see) can give us any equitable health care for ALL Americans. The death panel in Arizona is just the tip of the iceberg that is coming, and it should make us all cry out for this current health care industry insanity to end. We are becoming a less healthy country day by day when the best medical care is not available to all.
    (more)
  • VoteOut 2011/01/01 04:45:09
    Single payer has ALWAYS been the best alternative to what we have now.
    VoteOut
    Single payer always to best alternative for animals living in zoo But they actually living longer healthier happy lives in the free in the wild.

    Single payer other then the patient paying the doctor(thats real single payer) for services rendered is a hinderence on health

    To put health in the hands of the Govenment which has failed in most major undertakenings of their own will not provide good health care. Look at the FDA crimianls at large probably one of the most health harmfull agencies.
  • ὤTṻnde΄ӂ VoteOut 2011/01/01 18:49:48
    ὤTṻnde΄ӂ
    So, in your opinion, only the wealthy should have health care because they are the only ones who can "afford to pay the doctor." So you want millions upon millions of people to just die and receive no health care. The more the repugs want to repeal all of health care, the closer we are to a single payer.
  • VoteOut ὤTṻnde΄ӂ 2011/01/02 13:12:41
    VoteOut
    No first I dont want to be forced to buy health insurance for a system I care I do not believe in.

    Second most people will pay for more in "health in insurance" then they would if they just paid the doctor for the service and bought the medications (they dont really need) themselves.

    Medical costs are as high as they are becuase of an insurance system. Insurance in it self is a scam

    The system of care is flawed and probably over 50% of expenditures for treatments services and drugs are unnecissary.

    Resposibility is key and everyman women and child should take responsibilty for their health and wellbeing when and if that fails well of course they should be taken care of.

    Many people (not even wealthy) would glady pay $20,000 more for a car then they need but would complain to pay to go to the doctor.

    Are you for nationalising all services?
  • ὤTṻnde΄ӂ VoteOut 2011/01/07 18:52:56
    ὤTṻnde΄ӂ
    Those who say "I don't need insurance" will someday need medical attention. I'm sick and tired of paying for people without health insurance. My medical bills keep going higher and higher because more and more people can't afford health insurance.
  • VoteOut ὤTṻnde΄ӂ 2011/01/07 20:35:00
    VoteOut
    I dont want insurance for a system of care I dont agree with.. Your medical bills keep going higher and high or your insurance premiums keep going higher and higher. Because the statement "My medical bills keep going higher and higher because more and more people can't afford health insurance." Does not make sense

    Insurance is a lottery. Do you buy insurance because you hope you never have to use it? or do you buy it because you want get your moneys worth.

    Insurance full comprehensive "high end" was always a luxury for those that had expendable income which ended up spoiling the system and driving up the costs of the "service" You would be surprised how much cheaper health care could be if you just paid your doctor for your visits and paid for your medications.
  • ὤTṻnde΄ӂ VoteOut 2011/01/07 20:42:14
    ὤTṻnde΄ӂ
    You can't think or use common sense. Right now, if you go to the ER, or a doctor or get a lab completed, you get a bill or pay a co-pay. That aspirin that cost $4 for one pill in the ER means I'm paying for a lot of people who can't pay their medical bills. When you get a bill for a doctor or pay a co-pay, the inflated prices you pay (or your insurance pays) is also paying for those who cannot pay. You name may be on the bill, but if the truth be told, it will also list others who couldn't pay their own medicare.
  • VoteOut ὤTṻnde΄ӂ 2011/01/07 21:09:10
    VoteOut
    could not pay or would not pay. It is insurance that drove up the costs. Besides its allo cheaper to pay for someone medical bills then to pay for someones medical insurance. For the most part people pay far more for their medical coverage then they would if they just paid for the mdical costs they incurred.

    I dont know as I dont go to the doctor I spend my money on wellness not sickness. Again I do not follow Western medicine as it is flawed and probably as much as 75% or care and treatments are not necessary and unwarrented. The number one killer in the US is some form of CVD a mostly aviod dis-ease. These are things that need to be addressed and corrected. We should be moving towards a system where we require less and less medical attention/ intervention not more and more. The Govenment has failed at this look at the FDA one of the most corrupt agencies that have probably been more responcible for the nations ill and miss health and prevention of wellness then anything.
  • ὤTṻnde΄ӂ VoteOut 2011/01/07 21:41:32
    ὤTṻnde΄ӂ
    Could not pay. I can't talk to you. You make no sense. You don't understand what goes on in the health care industry, how things are paid for. It's good to know that you're one of the top 2% in America so you can pay cash. Bye.
  • VoteOut ὤTṻnde΄ӂ 2011/01/07 21:58:45
    VoteOut
    I understand it just fine and what goes on in the health industry and how its is interelated to banking and the derivatives market which is what the health bill was really about (beside redistributed wealth). And I am not in the top 2% but i also dont go to the doctor much at all. Have you seen there are more people in a doctors office doing admistrative bill collections and insurance claims then there are doctors but that is part of the cost. As far having a major/catastrophe health insurance maybe. Do you know the scam portayed by the drug compainies Hearst Publishing and Insurance.

    just take responsibilty for your own health dont ever leave it to someone else. education is key to wellness not mandated health insurance
  • VoteOut ὤTṻnde΄ӂ 2011/01/07 20:36:00
    VoteOut
    and the days they "may need attenion they will just pay for it. Doctors usually charge you less when you are paying your self and not with insurance.
  • ὤTṻnde΄ӂ VoteOut 2011/01/07 20:47:23
    ὤTṻnde΄ӂ
    And how many of the millions of Americans without jobs or insurance have the money to pay for a doctor or medication or hospital stay. If you're in the hospital, the hospital doesn't give you a break even though the doctor may give you a break if you're paying cash. You are an anomaly. The majority of Americans can't pay any medical bill with cash. I made a good living, above average, and when I was hospitalized I got a bill for $52,000 and that didn't include the doctors. Thank God I had insurance.
  • scooter... VoteOut 2011/01/07 17:46:43 (edited)
  • Boulder Sue 2010/12/31 19:06:35
    Single payer has ALWAYS been the best alternative to what we have now.
    Boulder Sue
    +2
    I love my Medicare, and as many Teabaggers shouted in the summer of 2009, want the government to "keep their hands off it", while not realizing that was exactly where it was coming from. Medicare for everyone! As I understand it, when Medicare was originally passed, that was the plan! I paid and continue to pay for it, and have a supplemental private plan which costs enormously after they started raising my rates, but good old Medicare has done very ell by me!
  • WGN 2010/12/31 16:25:28
    Single payer has ALWAYS been the best alternative to what we have now.
    WGN
    It is just that you had better pray that you don't get sick.
    Prayer works well for some of the weak minded, but in most cases is a waste of time.
  • ὤTṻnde΄ӂ WGN 2010/12/31 18:51:32
    ὤTṻnde΄ӂ
    Then there are a lot of people on the right on this site are weak-minded. Single-payer would solve millions of prayers.
  • scootertuner1000 2010/12/31 15:40:11 (edited)
    Single payer has ALWAYS been the best alternative to what we have now.
    scootertuner1000
    +2
    I lived in England for 19 ears and Germany for 6. England has neither single payer nor multipayer, it has a health care system that is financed through taxes, but is a public trust. It was by far the easiest system to deal with. You never had to claim for anything and there was no insurance company, be it a single payer or multipayer system to stand between you and your healthcare. Anyone who says otherwise has not experienced the English system. Before the conservative had their long run in power under Thatcher and then Major, England's NHS was the best healthcare system in the world bar none. After almost 20 years of attempting to dismanlte the system it suffered quite badly. Those who damaged it almost beyond repair, making it an also ran rather than the first/best system in the world were the conservative governments of Thatcher and Major. Blair did a lot to repair the system and got it back very close to the to the top, but now the Brits have another conservative controlled government, with the help of the LibDems (who have betrayed their base). I don't know a single LibDem voter who thinks that the LibDens should have made a coalition with the Tories. They all wanted them to make a coalition with Labour. They knew that the Lib Dems couldn't win, but the wante...
    I lived in England for 19 ears and Germany for 6. England has neither single payer nor multipayer, it has a health care system that is financed through taxes, but is a public trust. It was by far the easiest system to deal with. You never had to claim for anything and there was no insurance company, be it a single payer or multipayer system to stand between you and your healthcare. Anyone who says otherwise has not experienced the English system. Before the conservative had their long run in power under Thatcher and then Major, England's NHS was the best healthcare system in the world bar none. After almost 20 years of attempting to dismanlte the system it suffered quite badly. Those who damaged it almost beyond repair, making it an also ran rather than the first/best system in the world were the conservative governments of Thatcher and Major. Blair did a lot to repair the system and got it back very close to the to the top, but now the Brits have another conservative controlled government, with the help of the LibDems (who have betrayed their base). I don't know a single LibDem voter who thinks that the LibDens should have made a coalition with the Tories. They all wanted them to make a coalition with Labour. They knew that the Lib Dems couldn't win, but the wanted a liberal government not a conservative one. Everyone that I know who voted Lib Dem wanted a coalition with labour not the Tories. I can't see the current coalition in the U.K. lasting though. There is far to much unrest and it goes against the will of the people.
    (more)
  • ὤTṻnde΄ӂ scooter... 2010/12/31 18:54:52
    ὤTṻnde΄ӂ
    England is having problems with her economy, too, and perhaps the country can't afford the system you speak about. They could raise taxes, I guess. I would like a system like you first described.
  • scooter... ὤTṻnde΄ӂ 2010/12/31 19:46:35
    scootertuner1000
    +1
    England (or rather the UK) is having problems just as we are. England's problems are not as bad as ours though. It is not the cost of the healthcare system that has caused the problems in England it was the out of control banks and mortgage lenders, just like here. However, Holland, Germany, Austria, Luxembourg, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and more are not having any problems
  • La 2010/12/31 12:56:34
    Single payer has ALWAYS been the best alternative to what we have now.
    La
    +2
    If single payer is socialised health care, y'all need to learn to appreciate socialism ;)
  • scooter... La 2010/12/31 19:48:24
    scootertuner1000
    +2
    Single payer is what Canada has. Each province has its own insurance company and that insurance company pays the bills. It isn't the same as the NHS. Be careful of your use of the word socialism, most Americans do not really understand what it is and that there are things like social democracies, like most of Europe. They confuse the two.
  • harry 2010/12/31 05:00:49
    The pros of Single Payer are more numerous and a better option.
    harry
    +2
    It would be a strong completion to the established healthcare insurance.

    No Question about that - risk could be spread based on members and not based on status of health, age, sex and habits.
    The application process would be reduced and Doctors could finally do there job instead of fighting with insurance companies.
  • Steve 2010/12/31 03:09:26
    Single payer has ALWAYS been the best alternative to what we have now.
    Steve
    +3
    An option to pay into Medicare at cost to the program could be accomplished with a one-page bill and zero net cost to the budget.

    The only reason this hasn't been accomplished is obstruction by the legislators in Congress who have been bought by the insurance industry, mostly Republican.
  • ὤTṻnde΄ӂ Steve 2010/12/31 03:20:15
    ὤTṻnde΄ӂ
    +1
    BINGO!
  • Diverbelo 2010/12/31 02:50:43
    Single payer has ALWAYS been the best alternative to what we have now.
    Diverbelo
    +1
    First, the author of this poll has once again demonstrated the inability to provide choices for a true debate. I encourage the author to provide a dissenting choice on his polls..

    Now, the single payer system is a great choice for those who depend on government to take care of them. Their portion of paying into the system will be nothing and the burden of this entitlement will be added to the backs of those who are already paying the bulk of taxes.

    On to the specifics. I found a great article that debunks the myths of the single payer system.

    Myth No. 1: Everyone has access to health care a single-payer system.
    Myth No. 2: Claims of rationing are exaggerated.
    Myth No. 3: A single-payer system would save money on administrative costs.
    Myth No. 4: Single-payer will provide fair and quality care for everyone.
    Myth No. 5: Single-payer leaves medical decisions to patients & doctors.
    Myth No. 6: Single-payer systems achieve better health outcomes.
    Myth No. 7: The U.S. systems also engages in rationing.
    Myth No. 8: A single-payer system will not hamper medical research.
    Myth No. 9: Single-payer will save money as patients seek care earlier.
    Myth No. 10: The free market in health care has failed in the U.S.

    If you care to read the answers, here is the link...

    http...
    First, the author of this poll has once again demonstrated the inability to provide choices for a true debate. I encourage the author to provide a dissenting choice on his polls..

    Now, the single payer system is a great choice for those who depend on government to take care of them. Their portion of paying into the system will be nothing and the burden of this entitlement will be added to the backs of those who are already paying the bulk of taxes.

    On to the specifics. I found a great article that debunks the myths of the single payer system.

    Myth No. 1: Everyone has access to health care a single-payer system.
    Myth No. 2: Claims of rationing are exaggerated.
    Myth No. 3: A single-payer system would save money on administrative costs.
    Myth No. 4: Single-payer will provide fair and quality care for everyone.
    Myth No. 5: Single-payer leaves medical decisions to patients & doctors.
    Myth No. 6: Single-payer systems achieve better health outcomes.
    Myth No. 7: The U.S. systems also engages in rationing.
    Myth No. 8: A single-payer system will not hamper medical research.
    Myth No. 9: Single-payer will save money as patients seek care earlier.
    Myth No. 10: The free market in health care has failed in the U.S.

    If you care to read the answers, here is the link...

    http://www.freemarketcure.com...
    (more)
  • ὤTṻnde΄ӂ Diverbelo 2010/12/31 03:02:48
    ὤTṻnde΄ӂ
    +2
    When I choose my answer choices I always fashion them after the conservative polls on this site--no choices provided.
    BTW, you're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
  • Diverbelo ὤTṻnde΄ӂ 2010/12/31 03:09:39
    Diverbelo
    I don't agree with conservatives doing one sided polls. But two wrongs doesn't make a right does it? I strive to see all sides. If you don't like my facts, break them.
  • concern... Diverbelo 2010/12/31 03:09:14
    concerned dude
    +1
    I couldn't answer this poll with no poll options. What's the point. Our healthcare system needed some tweaking and discussion. Instead we got a mess that nobody read or understands and it is cranking up costs by the trillions. Nice job Washington.
    discussion mess read understands cranking costs trillions job washington healthcare cost overuns
  • Diverbelo concern... 2010/12/31 03:12:00
    Diverbelo
    Very true C Dude.. But, or friend with no name likes to post polls with no real options. I hope he will reconsider. But I suspect he will not.
  • flaca BN-0 Diverbelo 2010/12/31 03:48:57
    flaca BN-0
    +3
    doctors take care of you. You never see the government.
  • Diverbelo flaca BN-0 2011/01/01 03:05:25
    Diverbelo
    And under the single payer system who will pay the doctors? Who will control their salary?
  • flaca BN-0 Diverbelo 2011/01/01 04:33:46
    flaca BN-0
    doctors are paid directly by the govt. How much you get paid depends on what kind of doctor you are and your level of experience. They don't get as much as some in the US but they are still paid well compared to most professions. Most drive cool cars and live in nice places. Europe also has private clinics. If you need minor surgery you can go private but even that is about a third of the cost you'd pay for the same surgery in the US.

    People become doctors in Europe because that's what they want to do. Not because they want to be wealthy.
  • VoteOut flaca BN-0 2011/01/01 04:55:13
    VoteOut
    Yeah in Europe they still have not gotten to the ban of smoking in restuarants and public places in fact I beleive they even encourage people to smoke. Check the life expectancy rates and average and amximun lfe spans there jthey ust continue to decrease. But maybe that is the plan since there is not enough funding for all the entitlements they cant afford to have people live into old age
  • flaca BN-0 VoteOut 2011/01/01 04:57:36
    flaca BN-0
    that's not true. Many restaurants and office buildings in Europe don't have smoking and the number is increasing. I have checked the life expectancies and many euro countries are higher than we are, albeit only slightly.
  • VoteOut flaca BN-0 2011/01/01 05:07:57
    VoteOut
    which euro countries out in the boonies yes not in the cities
  • scooter... VoteOut 2011/01/07 14:21:20
    scootertuner1000
    Some countries have banned it some haven't. Europe is a continent not a country.
  • scooter... VoteOut 2011/01/07 14:20:48
    scootertuner1000
    Really? Tell that to pub owners in the U.K. who have gone out of business because people don't come in because they can't smoke in them any more.
  • Diverbelo flaca BN-0 2011/01/01 17:20:29
    Diverbelo
    Right, the goverment controls the doctor's in a single payer system. The government set's the rules for treatment, the government rations care according to their regulations. Notice a pattern here?
    After government control of health care is reached, let's move on to government control of all houseing and food. Arn't they needs just as much as health care?

    This is a fundemental difference between and liberals and conservatives. Liberals love government control in their lives, conservatives don't.
  • scooter... Diverbelo 2011/01/07 14:22:03 (edited)
    scootertuner1000
    The insurance companies ration care based on profit margins.
  • Diverbelo scooter... 2011/01/08 02:08:18
    Diverbelo
    They ration care based on their contracted obligations. If your policy says you get the treatment, you can get it or sue the insurance company for breach of contract.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/12/21 13:33:20

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals