Socialize what part of healthcare? Canada generally doesn’t have socialized healthcare providers, only socialized insurance. So providers could still engage in these sorts of billing practices in the Canadian system. Conversely, whatever rules prevent such billing practices in Canada could be applied in the US without socializing anything.
The concept of “socializing the health system” papers over the really important issues. Countries with universal healthcare don’t actually have a uniform system. They all have quite different systems. The Netherlands, for example has private insurance and private providers. The U.K. has no insurance and public providers (doctors work for the government). Other countries have various things in between. Single payer, like Canada has, isn’t even the most common system. Overlooking these distinctions means you may not fix the relevant problems. You can “socialize” insurance, but if you don’t impose controls on billing it’ll just be a different entity being overcharged.
> Socialize what part of healthcare? Canada generally doesn’t have socialized healthcare providers, only socialized insurance. So providers could still engage in these sorts of billing practices in the Canadian system.
The NHS is going to tell them to get bent, that they're paying the agreed upon price for the act and don't care about the rest of their bullshit, and if they're not happy with it they can close their office.
> Conversely, whatever rules prevent such billing practices in Canada could be applied in the US without socializing anything.
It's not "whatever rules". The NHS can negotiate prices and is interested in balancing keeping costs down with having providers.
Not only is this not a thing which can be "ruled", Congress (the GOP) has literally willed away the one lever the US Government has to do this: the Secretary of Health and Human Services is legally forbidden from negotiating prices on Part D prescription drugs.
And even then that'd only be for Medicare itself (though HR3 intends to not only reverse this but makes this negotiation a binding MSRP): the VA can and does negotiate drug prices, but that doesn't benefit people who are not under VA.
In a single payer system, the single payer in question has both incentive and leverage.
> The NHS is going to tell them to get bent, that they're paying the agreed upon price for the act and don't care about the rest of their bullshit, and if they're not happy with it they can close their office.
The Canadian system has socialized insurance plus price controls. But those are two separate things—you can have one without the other. The Swiss system, for example, has price schedules, but not “socialized” medicine.
As to drug pricing: you’re repeating FUD about Medicare. What should clue you in that this is FUD is that, for the most part, Medicare itself doesn’t cover prescription drugs. (Only drugs you get during a hospital visit.) Prescription drugs are covered by an optional program called Medicare Part D, which is provided through private insurance. So yes, the Secretary of DHHS isn’t permitted to negotiate prescription drug prices for Medicare. That’s because that’s the role of the Prescription Drug Plans under Part D. The private insurance plans that are offered under Part D do negotiate drug prices. See: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/IF11318.pdf
> Determination of Drug Prices in Medicare Part D
To bolster market competition and limit the federal role, the MMA included a non-interference provision (Social Security Act (SSA) §1860D-11(i)), which states that in carrying out the requirements of the Part D program, “the Secretary: (1) may not interfere with the negotiations between drug manufacturers and pharmacies and PDP sponsors; and (2) may not require a particular formulary or institute a price structure for the reimbursement of covered part D drugs.”
> Part D sponsors, working with pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), negotiate prices with drug manufacturers and contract with pharmacies to dispense drugs to plan enrollees. Negotiated price concessions mainly take the form of rebates (after-sale reductions) from a manufacturer’s list price for brand-name drugs.
I am in Quebec and here the state sets the rate for every single reimbursed act. Doctors can opt out of the public system, but then they can't take any reimbursement from it at all. It's all or nothing. Needless to say that the overwhelming majority of doctors opt to stay in the public system.
I assume it's similar in other provinces and therefore your premise is mostly wrong.
The concept of “socializing the health system” papers over the really important issues. Countries with universal healthcare don’t actually have a uniform system. They all have quite different systems. The Netherlands, for example has private insurance and private providers. The U.K. has no insurance and public providers (doctors work for the government). Other countries have various things in between. Single payer, like Canada has, isn’t even the most common system. Overlooking these distinctions means you may not fix the relevant problems. You can “socialize” insurance, but if you don’t impose controls on billing it’ll just be a different entity being overcharged.