Score
Title
15
How To Search ELI5: A Quick Reminder About Rule 7
6394
ELI5: Why does a familiar word sound unfamiliar after you overly repeat it?
388
ELI5: There's 21% oxygen in air. When we breathe out, there's still 16% oxygen in the exhaled air. Why's our lung so inefficient?
7656
ELI5 why is it that we always see so many new awesome ways to fight cancer and yet it seems nothing of it is ever being used?
2710
ELI5: Why is CTE brain damage such a hot topic in the NFL, but don't hear anything from the Rugby community?
20
ELI5: say if Kim Jon Un got assassinated; what would happen to the country?
57
ELI5 If symptoms of a cold serve the function of ridding our body of the illness, then do cold medicines that reduce these symptoms slow our recovery?
16
ELI5: how did women shaving their legs/armpits come about and why did men not do it too?
51
ELI5: That feeling you get when you’re traveling in a car and you go over a small but quick hill and your stomach has that weird sensation in it right as you reach the top and are hearing back down.
169
ELI5: A lot of toddlers have a physical reaction to eating something they really enjoy (usually a little dance of some sort) Why do we stop doing this as grown ups?
12578
ELI5:How is it that sperm and eggs can be frozen for years to be used later but we can't freeze a living person without killing them?
9
ELI5: How did it happen that the population of Oman upwards of age 25 contains a lot more men than women?
53
ELI5: Why do some plastics discolor and turn white when they are stressed/bent?
4
ELI5: Why might it be so hard for me to fall asleep again after waking up, but once my alarm goes off and I'm supposed to wake up, I suddenly can't stop hitting snooze and going back to sleep?
3
ELI5: Why doesn’t the United States have a high speed rail system?
4
ELI5 why is there so much activity with the Ring of Fire recently? How do we know which earthquakes are directly linked? Should California be as worried as the media makes out?
4
ELI5: Why do we feel the need to swallow when we are in tense situations?
62
ELI5 - Is someone born a narcissistic or is it learned behavior?
2
ELI5: For cold prevention, why are disinfectants recommended for cleaning public surfaces but discouraged for washing hands?
155
ELI5: How come the same prescription for eyeglasses produces thick "coke bottle" lenses can be used for paper thin contacts?
2
Eli5:Why are some people naturally better at fighting than others?
19
ELI5: Why does laying down help with nausea?
2
ELI5: How some people who smoke 2 packs a day have the lung film of a person who has never smoked?
17
ELI5: How are those giant prize winning vegetables, like the 150lb zucchini, grown?
2
ELI5: Why is air trapped in ice that's been still for hours?
2
ELI5: Why does "HD-ready" 720p TV panels have a resolution of 1366*768 rather than a 1280*720.
2
ELI5: Why do football coaches make substitutions in the last 10-15 mins in a game? What is the logic?
7
ELI5: Why is it bearable to look down from thousands of feet in the air, but terrifying to look down from only about 50 feet or so?
5
ELI5: When a candle burns, where does the wax go?
4
ELI5: Why when nervous does our mouth become dry ?
1
ELI5: What happens in our bodies in we get scared?
1
ELI5: Why do online transactions not require PIN?
1
ELI5:How does Modernity and Modernism affect Physical Space?
1
ELI5: Why are there still a few operating Blockbusters, and where does the money that they make go?
5
ELI5: What is the science behind ICBMs?
1
ELI5: What is the reason for people/investors to put a lot (!!) more money into a crowdfunding project than the final product is actually worth?
1
ELI5 Why do salt and vinegar flavour crisps turn my lips purple and tingly?
0
ELI5: Why do sports have seasons? Why are they not played year round?
3
ELI5: Why is it when my stomach is doing soothing, it makes a loud audible sound? What causes it and why is it so loud?
1
ELI5: how does copyright work?
1
ELI5:Why is the Atompower treaty so important to Iran?
92 blipsman Currently, there are a bunch of different private insurance companies who provide health insurance -- BlueCross/BlueShield, Cigna, Humana, Kaiser Permamente, and so on. We get these private insurance plans either through our employer, paying premiums through paycheck withholding, or by buying an individual plan. In addition to these private insurance plans, there are also government run plans like Medicare and Medicaid. In a single payer system, there is one insurance provider -- the government. Instead of paying premiums to the various companies, we'd pay a healthcare tax. Instead of doctors and hospitals having to deal with all these different insurance companies, and all the different plans they offer, there would be one SINGLE PAYER who pays all the claims. So the doctor is no longer submitting a bill to Cigna and getting $100 reimbursed, and $120 from BlueCross, and $75 from Medicare, and having to make sure claims are coded just-so based on each payers' requirements in order to get the reimbursement and so on. It's all the same requirements, all the same payouts. In theory, the efficiencies from reducing overhead on billing through this streamlining, along with the lack of profit margins of private companies, and the larger negotiating power of a single payer, mean that the costs could be the same or reduced and yet cover everybody. There are those who will counter with the "government is never as efficient as private business" but if you've ever dealt with health insurance companies, you know there are as bureaucratic as they come, and that they are not capitalistic businesses in the sense that they have to fight for our business -- typically our employer makes the choice and our options are take it or leave it, so they have no accountability to us as customers.
16 stairway2evan In the current system in the US, you go to the hospital, you get some treatment or some medicine or whatever, and they write up a bill. Depending on you and your situation, that bill will either go to the government (for Medicare, Medicaid, or other government health programs), to an insurance company (for most people with typical health insurance) or to you, the patient (if none of those apply). So there are multiple possible payers for the hospital to be billing. In a true single-payer system, every hospital bill would just go to the government. They basically act as everyone's insurance company, regardless of age, income, health, etc. Of course there's a bit more to it than that (on both sides) and it's no small debate, but that's the crux of the issue right now: whether the current model needs to be fixed or whether the US should switch to a fully government-funded healthcare system.
12 AltMiddle Insurance companies are in business to make a profit, so maybe 8-10% of premium dollars go to the shareholders of the insurance company. In a single payer model health care is paid for by a government entity, and instead of you or your employer paying premiums you pay taxes. Since there are no shareholders taking a cut, theoretically this leaves more money for actual patient care. Every other industrial democracy has a single payer system. Critics, mostly conservatives, point to perceived shortcomings in such systems claiming, for example, that patients have to wait longer to receive care. The extent to which this is true is a subject of political debate. The Insurance companies, and rich people, tend to deride single payer and the industry spends lots of money on PR to persuade voters, and for lobbying Congress, against it.
7 NotChistianRudder Frontline has a very thorough [documentary](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/) about several different healthcare systems around the world. Worth watching.
13 groovyreg In the UK, for people in employment, we pay about 12% of our income in National Insurance. Our employers pay another 13.8% contribution. This pool of money goes to pay for healthcare for all. Actually, it's not really that straightforward as National Insurance pays for a bunch of things like the state pension and other benefits and the majority of the cost of the National Health Service actually comes from general taxation. Regardless of where the money actually comes from, we all pay into a big pot and get healthcare when we need it. The level of care you receive isn't based on an ability to pay. You earn more, you pay more in tax, but you receive the same level of care regardless. There are some exceptions - not everything is free at the point of need. We pay a flat fee for all prescriptions and a lot of dentistry is privatised these days. You can opt to pay for private treatment. You still have to pay for the NHS (you can't opt out) and virtually all complex (ergo expensive) treatment is conducted by the NHS. The advantage of this single-payer system is that the one big health provider has immense buying power so benefits from economies of scale. As the only game in town, pharmaceutical companies and even individual doctors, cannot sell their products and services to the highest bidder, they either trade with the NHS or don't deal at all. The disadvantage of this system is that you can't really jump the queue by paying more (okay, you can to an extent but not really for anything substantive) so, if you're in that financial position you might not favour such a system. Furthermore, policy decisions are taken in the best interests of users overall. This can mean that some very expensive treatments aren't purchased by the NHS as it's determined in a cost/benefit analysis to be an inefficient use of finite resources. Also it could be argued that the NHS' virtual monopoly means this system lacks the drive that competition can bring to an industry (depending on your economic philosophy). Anyway, for an average Joe in an average job, you get your payslip at the end of the month and a chunk of the gross is removed in tax and national insurance. When you need to see a doctor you make an appointment (usually with a family doctor aka a GP) who will provide you with treatment or refer you to a specialist. The two events (paying tax/receiving medical treatment) have no connection in everyday life - you always pay tax and you get medical treatment whenever you need it. There's generally no appetite to change this system here - any suggestion of introducing a profit-motive into healthcare is met with strenuous resistance.
6 vorpalblab As a Canadian the single payer system functions like this, you pay your taxes, you get health care. I live in Quebec, and in addition to the health care, I also get all meds covered for something like 80 dollars a month. I take 17 pills every day. I also get a shot of some drug into my eyeball that costs 1400 bucks a shot every six weeks. I was working in France for 5 years (another single pay system that works great) and a week or so after arriving back in Canada I had a heart attack before I could switch my coverage to the Canadian system. So off to the emerg. No questions asked about how I was gonna pay the bill. Off to the OR after stabilising the situation and then a quintuple bypass was done. After it was all over the bill looked like about 100,000 dollars but, it was covered when the French sped up the document transfer in a miracle of bureaucratic efficiency and it was covered in Quebec. The thing is, each hospital in the province is subsidised for all operating costs and overhead by the health care system so all services provided regardless of ability to pay and are not on a money lost basis and all who arrive are treated. The hospital can bill non covered patients, but whatever they do collect is in addition to their budget income. (Also the hospitals do not make a huge effort to collect all the non covered Emergency Department bills.) However if the arrival is a non-emergency or elective procedure, there are different responses, like who is gonna pay how much and when.
89 0 blipsman Currently, there are a bunch of different private insurance companies who provide health insurance -- BlueCross/BlueShield, Cigna, Humana, Kaiser Permamente, and so on. We get these private insurance plans either through our employer, paying premiums through paycheck withholding, or by buying an individual plan. In addition to these private insurance plans, there are also government run plans like Medicare and Medicaid. In a single payer system, there is one insurance provider -- the government. Instead of paying premiums to the various companies, we'd pay a healthcare tax. Instead of doctors and hospitals having to deal with all these different insurance companies, and all the different plans they offer, there would be one SINGLE PAYER who pays all the claims. So the doctor is no longer submitting a bill to Cigna and getting $100 reimbursed, and $120 from BlueCross, and $75 from Medicare, and having to make sure claims are coded just-so based on each payers' requirements in order to get the reimbursement and so on. It's all the same requirements, all the same payouts. In theory, the efficiencies from reducing overhead on billing through this streamlining, along with the lack of profit margins of private companies, and the larger negotiating power of a single payer, mean that the costs could be the same or reduced and yet cover everybody. There are those who will counter with the "government is never as efficient as private business" but if you've ever dealt with health insurance companies, you know there are as bureaucratic as they come, and that they are not capitalistic businesses in the sense that they have to fight for our business -- typically our employer makes the choice and our options are take it or leave it, so they have no accountability to us as customers.
16 0 stairway2evan In the current system in the US, you go to the hospital, you get some treatment or some medicine or whatever, and they write up a bill. Depending on you and your situation, that bill will either go to the government (for Medicare, Medicaid, or other government health programs), to an insurance company (for most people with typical health insurance) or to you, the patient (if none of those apply). So there are multiple possible payers for the hospital to be billing. In a true single-payer system, every hospital bill would just go to the government. They basically act as everyone's insurance company, regardless of age, income, health, etc. Of course there's a bit more to it than that (on both sides) and it's no small debate, but that's the crux of the issue right now: whether the current model needs to be fixed or whether the US should switch to a fully government-funded healthcare system.
11 0 AltMiddle Insurance companies are in business to make a profit, so maybe 8-10% of premium dollars go to the shareholders of the insurance company. In a single payer model health care is paid for by a government entity, and instead of you or your employer paying premiums you pay taxes. Since there are no shareholders taking a cut, theoretically this leaves more money for actual patient care. Every other industrial democracy has a single payer system. Critics, mostly conservatives, point to perceived shortcomings in such systems claiming, for example, that patients have to wait longer to receive care. The extent to which this is true is a subject of political debate. The Insurance companies, and rich people, tend to deride single payer and the industry spends lots of money on PR to persuade voters, and for lobbying Congress, against it.
6 0 NotChistianRudder Frontline has a very thorough [documentary](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/) about several different healthcare systems around the world. Worth watching.
13 0 groovyreg In the UK, for people in employment, we pay about 12% of our income in National Insurance. Our employers pay another 13.8% contribution. This pool of money goes to pay for healthcare for all. Actually, it's not really that straightforward as National Insurance pays for a bunch of things like the state pension and other benefits and the majority of the cost of the National Health Service actually comes from general taxation. Regardless of where the money actually comes from, we all pay into a big pot and get healthcare when we need it. The level of care you receive isn't based on an ability to pay. You earn more, you pay more in tax, but you receive the same level of care regardless. There are some exceptions - not everything is free at the point of need. We pay a flat fee for all prescriptions and a lot of dentistry is privatised these days. You can opt to pay for private treatment. You still have to pay for the NHS (you can't opt out) and virtually all complex (ergo expensive) treatment is conducted by the NHS. The advantage of this single-payer system is that the one big health provider has immense buying power so benefits from economies of scale. As the only game in town, pharmaceutical companies and even individual doctors, cannot sell their products and services to the highest bidder, they either trade with the NHS or don't deal at all. The disadvantage of this system is that you can't really jump the queue by paying more (okay, you can to an extent but not really for anything substantive) so, if you're in that financial position you might not favour such a system. Furthermore, policy decisions are taken in the best interests of users overall. This can mean that some very expensive treatments aren't purchased by the NHS as it's determined in a cost/benefit analysis to be an inefficient use of finite resources. Also it could be argued that the NHS' virtual monopoly means this system lacks the drive that competition can bring to an industry (depending on your economic philosophy). Anyway, for an average Joe in an average job, you get your payslip at the end of the month and a chunk of the gross is removed in tax and national insurance. When you need to see a doctor you make an appointment (usually with a family doctor aka a GP) who will provide you with treatment or refer you to a specialist. The two events (paying tax/receiving medical treatment) have no connection in everyday life - you always pay tax and you get medical treatment whenever you need it. There's generally no appetite to change this system here - any suggestion of introducing a profit-motive into healthcare is met with strenuous resistance.
5 0 vorpalblab As a Canadian the single payer system functions like this, you pay your taxes, you get health care. I live in Quebec, and in addition to the health care, I also get all meds covered for something like 80 dollars a month. I take 17 pills every day. I also get a shot of some drug into my eyeball that costs 1400 bucks a shot every six weeks. I was working in France for 5 years (another single pay system that works great) and a week or so after arriving back in Canada I had a heart attack before I could switch my coverage to the Canadian system. So off to the emerg. No questions asked about how I was gonna pay the bill. Off to the OR after stabilising the situation and then a quintuple bypass was done. After it was all over the bill looked like about 100,000 dollars but, it was covered when the French sped up the document transfer in a miracle of bureaucratic efficiency and it was covered in Quebec. The thing is, each hospital in the province is subsidised for all operating costs and overhead by the health care system so all services provided regardless of ability to pay and are not on a money lost basis and all who arrive are treated. The hospital can bill non covered patients, but whatever they do collect is in addition to their budget income. (Also the hospitals do not make a huge effort to collect all the non covered Emergency Department bills.) However if the arrival is a non-emergency or elective procedure, there are different responses, like who is gonna pay how much and when.