3 ms·
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 increasi
by 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 agoI 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 agoFair enough. I spoke a little simply.
- usrusr 10y agoForgive 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 agoYou 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.