4 ms·
This is one of those solutions that seems simple and neat, but falls apart on a cursory inspection. For example, it implies that the poor should die of curable
by chc 9y ago
This is one of those solutions that seems simple and neat, but falls apart on a cursory inspection. For example, it implies that the poor should die of curable illnesses. It also largely ignores the economics of the situation — healthcare is inherently expensive because it involves high technology, high safety standards and lots of training. You can't have it be like food, where people just get it when they want it, because Taco Bell employees don't have to go through a decade of special schooling before they're qualified to work there. Without an individual mandate, an employer mandate or universal coverage, there's no way ordinary people will be able to afford anything beyond the most basic services.
- crankylinuxuser 9y agoOh bullshit. Sure, there's a lot of newer tech in medical. But for a ton of routine medicine uses generic drugs, simple testing (scales, blood pressure, simply viewing abnormalities), and cheap care. For "routine medicine" this should be negligible cost - it's only because of systemic garbage I can't just go to the pharmacist and buy metformin without going through a fucking paywall. Sure, I get something weird and/or strange, sure all bets are off.
- zanny 9y agoI'd agree that drugs with almost no overdose risk are stupid to put behind a prescription, but a lot of prescription drugs are dangerous and are only used because the status quo is worse. Even metformin has side effects - you really shouldn't be taking it if you don't need it, and you professionally cannot know if you do. And doctors want annual / quarterly renewals on prescriptions to check if your condition has gotten better or worse in regards to whatever the drugs were treating. Because at the end of the day, if you overdose on something, someone will still call 911, an ambulance will still come haul you to the hospital, and doctors will still spend millions of dollars trying to save your life if they deem it feasible regardless of if you can afford it or not. Unless you have an explicit will saying not to do that. And when you cannot pay your million dollar hospital stay (and the uninsured cannot) the hospital gets to write off the loss and seek recompense from the government anyway. And from the governments perspective, around the world, it is simply cheaper to provide regular and preventative care than to deal with the astronomical higher rate of emergency care people have to get in the US because they cannot afford the cheap routine stuff and instead cost the state life saving procedures instead.
- chc 9y ago"Something weird and/or strange"? A condition as commonplace and easily treatable as appendicitis requires more than generic drugs, a scale and a blood pressure cuff. Then consider other relatively common conditions like cancer (more than a third of the population will have to fight it at some point) or head injuries. But even if it were just weird things that cost a lot, that would still be a serious problem with the idea of expecting people to just buy healthcare as needed.
- pathseeker 9y agoThe comparison is to employers providing the healthcare! Poor people aren't getting healthcare from their employer.
- chc 9y agoLots of people making below-average incomes get healthcare through their employer. And regardless, it's certainly possible with employer-provided healthcare for everyone who has a job to get insurance through it, whether or not that's happening now. It doesn't make sense to arbitrarily decide that an idea can only be compared to one specific implementation of one specific other idea — it should be compared to the strongest competing ideas, and its drawbacks should be acknowledged on their own merits.