3 ms·

I think you're not recognizing the magnitude of difference here. I could personally pay for the normal checkups and basic healthcare for my family and my immed

by dpark 10y ago

I think you're not recognizing the magnitude of difference here. I could personally pay for the normal checkups and basic healthcare for my family and my immediate neighbors with no real hardship. However, just one of the people I provided care for was diagnosed with cancer or any of a number of severe, chronic diseases, it could wipe out my savings entirely. The cost of one severe illness could cover the cost of dozens if not hundreds of generally-healthy people's healthcare. I don't strictly disagree with your assessment that people should cover their own basic healthcare needs. I just don't think that this actually does much to make coverage more affordable in general, because it's catastrophic coverage that costs so much.

ThomPete 10y ago
I think you are missing the point of what I am trying to say. In Denmark it's both free to go to the doctor and to go to the hospital. This model is obviously great but it has it's limits with things like treatment opportunity. What I am proposing is a model that mixes the US and the Danish system. We pay for our non-serious things but don't get bankrupted on serious illness. The price of US hospitals are inflated, they aren't the real cost which any visit to a hospital anywhere else in the world will tell you.
- dpark 10y ago
  I get your point. I just don't think it actually matters much. If you make people pay for basic care but cover the big stuff, you only cut a few percentage points off the cost of care carried by the state/insurers. I don't see how this is at all related to the inflated costs of American hospitals.
  - ThomPete 10y ago
    It matters quite a lot because the source of the money creates very different dynamics. I have lived in both of them. There is a reason why the us healthcare system can have inflated costs and thats because of the nature of the the way it gets funded. And because it gets funded differently it allows for a different kind of dynamics in the offering. Go to Denmark the hospitals mostly look the same with a few notable differences and you have to wait til it's your turn.

by dpark 10y ago

ThomPete 10y ago

I think you are missing the point of what I am trying to say. In Denmark it's both free to go to the doctor and to go to the hospital. This model is obviously great but it has it's limits with things like treatment opportunity. What I am proposing is a model that mixes the US and the Danish system. We pay for our non-serious things but don't get bankrupted on serious illness. The price of US hospitals are inflated, they aren't the real cost which any visit to a hospital anywhere else in the world will tell you.

dpark 10y ago
I get your point. I just don't think it actually matters much. If you make people pay for basic care but cover the big stuff, you only cut a few percentage points off the cost of care carried by the state/insurers. I don't see how this is at all related to the inflated costs of American hospitals.
- ThomPete 10y ago
  It matters quite a lot because the source of the money creates very different dynamics. I have lived in both of them. There is a reason why the us healthcare system can have inflated costs and thats because of the nature of the the way it gets funded. And because it gets funded differently it allows for a different kind of dynamics in the offering. Go to Denmark the hospitals mostly look the same with a few notable differences and you have to wait til it's your turn.