This was before Obamacare,
You said it was only 3 years ago. Obamacare's been around for 7 years. The exchanges have been around for 4. So something in your story isn't adding up. Probably because you're doing a very sloppy, rushed job of trying to shoehorn in unverifiable personal anecdotes that just so happen to validate your argument when the facts we can all see plainly do not.
I didn't use insurance for doctor visits, nowhere did I say I didn't have insurance.
And I. Don't. Believe. You. Why should I take your word for it? What have you done to establish that level of trust where I can accept the things you say about yourself with no proof?
I never said I paid with chickens, shit head. The doctor didn't have to bill an insurance company and got money that day instead of waiting 60-90 days. Just because you never heard of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
First of all, you are now admitting that the administrative costs for private health insurance are burdensome to providers, which only bolsters the case for single-payer. Secondly, whether or not your provider is reimbursed has no bearing on the health care that was delivered to you. It is a transaction
you are not even a part of. Thirdly, you are also saying that private insurers are
inefficient if they are inconsistently reimbursing your provider. Which, again, only bolsters the case for a single entity that does reimbursements for everyone that is not privately-owned and unaccountable to patients, as private insurers are now.
Ever buy a car with cash? There is a discount if you pay cash. People don't like to wait to get paid.
So again, all you're doing is bolstering the case for single payer by lamenting the inefficiencies of private insurance. Medicare doesn't have those problems, does it? Medicare pays quickly, on time, and efficiently, and does it with 1% overhead.