4 ms·

My confusion comes because in my first two citations you suggest requiring patients to pay for most of their basic/non-life-threatening healthcare. You say this

My confusion comes because in my first two citations you suggest requiring patients to pay for most of their basic/non-life-threatening healthcare. You say this, if I'm not mistaken, because "free or semi free" healthcare is "operated as a cost center". That is, by requiring patients to pay for most of their basic healthcare, that cost center will be reduced because patients will be discouraged from seeking "unnecessary" healthcare. On the other hand, in Denmark where basic healthcare is free, the data you allude to (but do not present) show that even then "a lot of people don't go for checkups [because] it's not a common thing to do." Additionally, you write "Furthermore the situation is even worse for men over 50." So my confusion comes from your contradictory assertions about the effects of fully subsidized basic healthcare. Either free healthcare generates cost overruns because people seek out unnecessary treatment, or free healthcare does not generate cost overruns because people do not seek out even necessary treatment. Your assertions about the effect of free healthcare are paradoxical, hence my confusion. EDIT: fix typo, recast first sentence of penultimate paragraph. Remove redundant prepositional phrase from last sentence.

ThomPete 10y ago
I am saying that because then they start paying for when they go to get treated or for checkups which allow for more money being possible to use on more serious situations. I am not sure where you get that I want less people to go to the doctor. I just want to be able to pay for the situations you can't afford by asking for money in situations where most people can. And yes if you don't have any money then you should get help, but for people who make enough it should cost something. So there is nothing paradoxial going on here. You just assumed I wanted fewer people to go to the doctor which I never said anything about.
- mistersquid 10y ago
  That makes better sense, but covering costs of extraordinary care isn't an issue in state-provided health insurance (single payer), nor is it an issue with private healthcare insurance. With single payer, taxes cover the cost of care for everyone. With private insurance, the costs for more expensive care is covered by the premiums of healthier individuals, which is sort of like what you suggest but does not financially punish people who get sick. What you propose may not be workable (or humane, for that matter) because it distributes the costs of extraordinary care to people who already have more-than-routine care. Presumably these people already have paid their premiums and now would shoulder most of the cost for maladies such as broken bones. EDIT: add missing word "workable".
  - ThomPete 10y ago
    It actually is an issue in both systems which is why in state-provided systems there are limits to what kind of treatments at what stages etc and in privet insurance systems there are limits to coverage. The main premise of this discussion is that it's not possible to pay enough for healthcare. I.e. even if you taxed people 100% there still would be things they couldn't get because it has to be available to everyone and there are always new treatments being developed, new machines, new drugs. Whether you find it humane or not is based on what you consider the end-game of healthcare.

ThomPete 10y ago

I am saying that because then they start paying for when they go to get treated or for checkups which allow for more money being possible to use on more serious situations. I am not sure where you get that I want less people to go to the doctor. I just want to be able to pay for the situations you can't afford by asking for money in situations where most people can. And yes if you don't have any money then you should get help, but for people who make enough it should cost something. So there is nothing paradoxial going on here. You just assumed I wanted fewer people to go to the doctor which I never said anything about.

mistersquid 10y ago
That makes better sense, but covering costs of extraordinary care isn't an issue in state-provided health insurance (single payer), nor is it an issue with private healthcare insurance. With single payer, taxes cover the cost of care for everyone. With private insurance, the costs for more expensive care is covered by the premiums of healthier individuals, which is sort of like what you suggest but does not financially punish people who get sick. What you propose may not be workable (or humane, for that matter) because it distributes the costs of extraordinary care to people who already have more-than-routine care. Presumably these people already have paid their premiums and now would shoulder most of the cost for maladies such as broken bones. EDIT: add missing word "workable".
- ThomPete 10y ago
  It actually is an issue in both systems which is why in state-provided systems there are limits to what kind of treatments at what stages etc and in privet insurance systems there are limits to coverage. The main premise of this discussion is that it's not possible to pay enough for healthcare. I.e. even if you taxed people 100% there still would be things they couldn't get because it has to be available to everyone and there are always new treatments being developed, new machines, new drugs. Whether you find it humane or not is based on what you consider the end-game of healthcare.