> and amount to a difference between "choosing which hand to reattach and letting the other go dead," and "No lap-band for you fatty."
No, it tends to be a lot of care that isn't worth the cost that gets denied. This is very different from what an American expects, which is that everything they "need" (or what their doctor says they should do) ought to be covered.
The lap-band often passes, because it can be a relatively low-cost way to add a bunch of QALYs to a patient's life.
NB: I think having care decided on a cost-basis is a pretty good approach, at least to start from, but it is immensely unpopular in the US. On both sides of the aisle.
> Anyway, in almost all world single payer systems, rich people can still pay for vanity doctors.
Often. Not always. In Canada only recently could a doctor offer the same services the government offered, and that was against the will of the legislature. Their supreme court had to rule on it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaoulli_v_Quebec_(AG)
No, it tends to be a lot of care that isn't worth the cost that gets denied. This is very different from what an American expects, which is that everything they "need" (or what their doctor says they should do) ought to be covered.
The lap-band often passes, because it can be a relatively low-cost way to add a bunch of QALYs to a patient's life.
NB: I think having care decided on a cost-basis is a pretty good approach, at least to start from, but it is immensely unpopular in the US. On both sides of the aisle.
> Anyway, in almost all world single payer systems, rich people can still pay for vanity doctors.
Often. Not always. In Canada only recently could a doctor offer the same services the government offered, and that was against the will of the legislature. Their supreme court had to rule on it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaoulli_v_Quebec_(AG)