On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 08:58, David Forslund wrote: > But the government paid healthcare in the US is one of the BIG stimuli > for fraud and identity theft. �Without the government being involved, the > drive for identity theft would be less. �Removing any restraints on > eligibility will drive > the costs even higher.
Probably wrong. The US have the highest per capita expenditure on health of all OECD countries. At the same time, the US have one of the least comprehensive *public* health systems, and only mediocre outcome in terms of WHO criteria. Meaning that there is not so much in terms of "government paid healthcare" in the first place, since the government sees its role restricted to "emergency backup for desperate cases" rtaher than universal comprehensiveservice provision Countries like Norway where there are zero restraints on eligibility (every temporary or permanent resident is eligible for full comprehensive public health care) have a significantly smaller per capita health expenditure and, maybe surprisingly, a better outcome in terms of WHO criteria. Translate that into "In the US, if you are rich, you can get the best possible health care, albeit at a premium price. Everybody else gets ripped off for a rather mediocre service (in terms of value for money in OECD comparison), and a significant part of the population even misses out on OECD class health care. Just look at your drug prices! This is because much of the money officially spent on health is diverted into bureaucracy / administration, unnecessary duplication of services, waste of ressources, and outright profiteering." This is the domain where fraud pays off. What fraud could you possibly commit if you are entitled to a high class free treatment through the public health service in the first place? It is my conviction that there are not many countries where a PID would facilitate fraud - in the majority of countries a PID system would indeed *prevent* fraud. Horst
