3 ms·

If you get a serious condition in your 20s, that's what you should be covered by with cat- insurance. If everyone needs "hundreds of thousands of dollars over

by wisty 17y ago

If you get a serious condition in your 20s, that's what you should be covered by with cat- insurance. If everyone needs "hundreds of thousands of dollars over their lifetime" they are getting too much healthcare. That's my other point - we sink all the money into more-or-less useless operations on old people who are about to kick the bucket. Healthcare is best directed towards younger people, where it can make a difference. Old people often get stuff that's likely to be net negative (side effects, complications, etc) because the hospitals want to make money off the procedures.

foldr 17y ago
I guess I'm not understanding what this "catastrophic insurance" is supposed to be. If it covers any medical condition that you might get in your 20s -- without charging enormous co-pays -- then it seems an awful lot like regular insurance. I can't see any reason why someone in their 20s would need less coverage than someone in their 70s. You may be less likely to get sick, but if you do get sick, you'll want that coverage even more than someone in their 70s (since you have more to lose). >If everyone needs "hundreds of thousands of dollars over their lifetime" they are getting too much healthcare. Eh? I never suggested that everyone needed to spend that amount. But some individuals will, and not just for "useless operations." There are plenty of cancer survivors who are in that degree of debt. >Healthcare is best directed towards younger people, where it can make a difference. I hate how the terms of the debate in America are so selfish. In no other country is there any perception that the old and the young are somehow conflicting interest groups in healthcare. The discussion of this issue is a symptom of the bitterness, cynicism, and (frankly) utter insanity brought about by decades of buying and selling healthcare as a commodity. I just can't engage on this point; I'm baffled by it.

by wisty 17y ago

foldr 17y ago

I guess I'm not understanding what this "catastrophic insurance" is supposed to be. If it covers any medical condition that you might get in your 20s -- without charging enormous co-pays -- then it seems an awful lot like regular insurance. I can't see any reason why someone in their 20s would need less coverage than someone in their 70s. You may be less likely to get sick, but if you do get sick, you'll want that coverage even more than someone in their 70s (since you have more to lose). >If everyone needs "hundreds of thousands of dollars over their lifetime" they are getting too much healthcare. Eh? I never suggested that everyone needed to spend that amount. But some individuals will, and not just for "useless operations." There are plenty of cancer survivors who are in that degree of debt. >Healthcare is best directed towards younger people, where it can make a difference. I hate how the terms of the debate in America are so selfish. In no other country is there any perception that the old and the young are somehow conflicting interest groups in healthcare. The discussion of this issue is a symptom of the bitterness, cynicism, and (frankly) utter insanity brought about by decades of buying and selling healthcare as a commodity. I just can't engage on this point; I'm baffled by it.