Well, this is going to sound strange coming from me, but with a private system, a doctor should have the freedom to deny you service even if you have the money.
LividBovine wrote:The money out of pocket for the service will be higher, but the total monies spent will be lower in the long term. There is additional cost built into the charges presented to the insurance company to pay for the administration of the system. The Insurance agency also charges you more in premiums to pay for its administration. By removing these added cost, it would lower the cost of health care services.
Turquoise wrote:In general, you're going to get charged more for care without insurance -- a lot more. Even if we assume you don't have any major health concerns until you're 40 or 45, you're still taking quite a risk by not having insurance.
Also, many providers won't even serve you if you don't have insurance -- even if you have the money. The idea there is that they don't want to get stuck holding the bag if complications arise. You might have the money for an initial service, but not necessarily for subsequent ones.
If a doctor refuses to provides services because you have no insurance, then there is a problem. There has to be a way to ensure people who want to pay out of pocket are not denied service. Of course without adding a government agency to regulate it.
Basically, you just have to find another doctor.
I personally prefer socialization over privatization, but when it comes to private practices.... well, we have to be consistent in giving providers freedom.
Denial of coverage over pre-existing conditions is a whole other ball game, however. That form of denial should be illegal because it's not so much a matter of a provider's freedom as it is the provider just trying to cheat its customers.