3 ms·

Why would that be a sane system? IMO a sane system is one where the paid cost scales with the real costs of the health care, no? Ones health care costs arent g

Why would that be a sane system? IMO a sane system is one where the paid cost scales with the real costs of the health care, no? Ones health care costs arent going to be cut in half if hours are cut in half. Still need just as many annual checkups, may still have the same diabetes etc.

Mithaldu 10y ago
No, health care is implicitly a system of shared costs to benefit all of society by limiting the amount of ill people present as much as possible, thus increasing the health of everyone else by reducing contacts with ill people. In such a system, costs are of course taken on by every single participant according to their means. Read up on german health insurance for example.
- waqf 10y ago
  I agree that that is a sane system, but it's not correct to call the payment an "insurance cost" if it is calculated according to means, not according to expected future treatment costs. That's what was causing the confusion and dissent. (Also … don't ask what US health insurance costs are based on. It's too horrible to contemplate. They're based on, among other things, your employer's negotiating power vis-à-vis the health insurance industry.)
  - Mithaldu 10y ago
    Fair enough. I spoke a little simply.
- usrusr 10y ago
  Forgive my sarcasm: > Read up on german health insurance for example. Which one, the one where middle income employees pay healthcare for all the poor and incapable, or the one where the wealthy and some happy civil servants don't? The American system is terrible, but I really don't think that we are qualified to point fingers.
  - Mithaldu 10y ago
    You failed to formulate a coherent disagreement. Please address the actual points of my post and speak clearly.
  - douche 10y ago
    >the one where middle income employees pay healthcare for all the poor and incapable That about sums up the US system... I don't particularly like the idea of the federal government getting their grubby fingers into more than they are constitutionally mandated to, but a single-payer system could cut out the byzantine insurance coding and billing bureaucracy that causes medical costs to be completely arbitrary and opaque.
Broken_Hippo 10y ago
It is a sane system because everyone is paying into it, and you can do things on a larger scale to help more people. With health care being disconnected from the job, it doesn't tie people to an employer they hate and changing jobs is less of a risk. There are pluses and minuses, of course. They still should have checkups, but not everyone needs them annually. Still might have diabetes, but with less stress and actually having time to cook proper meals, the diabetes might be better controlled and have cost savings in the long term (fewer complications) - and possibly short term if they have type 2 and go from insulin to pills. Sweden has been testing out 6 hour days - with nurses, they find overall absenteeism has dropped and folks are happier. Large scale, this would probably mean that folks are sick less often. Might not be cut by 25%, but improvement is still improvement.

Mithaldu 10y ago

No, health care is implicitly a system of shared costs to benefit all of society by limiting the amount of ill people present as much as possible, thus increasing the health of everyone else by reducing contacts with ill people. In such a system, costs are of course taken on by every single participant according to their means. Read up on german health insurance for example.

waqf 10y ago
I agree that that is a sane system, but it's not correct to call the payment an "insurance cost" if it is calculated according to means, not according to expected future treatment costs. That's what was causing the confusion and dissent. (Also … don't ask what US health insurance costs are based on. It's too horrible to contemplate. They're based on, among other things, your employer's negotiating power vis-à-vis the health insurance industry.)
- Mithaldu 10y ago
  Fair enough. I spoke a little simply.
usrusr 10y ago
Forgive my sarcasm: > Read up on german health insurance for example. Which one, the one where middle income employees pay healthcare for all the poor and incapable, or the one where the wealthy and some happy civil servants don't? The American system is terrible, but I really don't think that we are qualified to point fingers.
- Mithaldu 10y ago
  You failed to formulate a coherent disagreement. Please address the actual points of my post and speak clearly.
- douche 10y ago
  >the one where middle income employees pay healthcare for all the poor and incapable That about sums up the US system... I don't particularly like the idea of the federal government getting their grubby fingers into more than they are constitutionally mandated to, but a single-payer system could cut out the byzantine insurance coding and billing bureaucracy that causes medical costs to be completely arbitrary and opaque.

Broken_Hippo 10y ago

It is a sane system because everyone is paying into it, and you can do things on a larger scale to help more people. With health care being disconnected from the job, it doesn't tie people to an employer they hate and changing jobs is less of a risk. There are pluses and minuses, of course. They still should have checkups, but not everyone needs them annually. Still might have diabetes, but with less stress and actually having time to cook proper meals, the diabetes might be better controlled and have cost savings in the long term (fewer complications) - and possibly short term if they have type 2 and go from insulin to pills. Sweden has been testing out 6 hour days - with nurses, they find overall absenteeism has dropped and folks are happier. Large scale, this would probably mean that folks are sick less often. Might not be cut by 25%, but improvement is still improvement.