5 ms·

> When a person gets a life threatening disease they ought not worry about whether or not their treatment will leave their family in penury. You can't start an

> When a person gets a life threatening disease they ought not worry about whether or not their treatment will leave their family in penury. You can't start any economic argument by saying that paying any cost is a must. You will get fleeced. It is not true that universal healthcare pays for everything. The most expensive and experimental treatments will not be covered ever by the system, and it shouldnt.

sykh 9y ago
It is a well known fact that all medical care systems ration care. A person in America who gets cancer, say, often times faces bankrupt and financial ruin. The same can not be said of people in other wealthy nations. I fail to see your point. All healthcare systems ration care. Not all of them lead to financial ruin at the rate the American healthcare system does. My statement stands. A person ought not face financial ruin. It may be the case that there aren’t enough resources to treat the disease it this does not negate the belief that they shouldn’t face financial ruin.
- DamnYuppie 9y ago
  They don't face financial ruin, unless they don't have health insurance and or they opt for various drugs that aren't covered by their plan. Before everyone screams that all things should be covered please consider that due diligence has actually been done and the drug was considered to either not be effective or not needed based upon other existing treatments.
  - sykh 9y ago
    The idea of universal care is that everyone have insurance. Before Obamacare my sister got cancer. She wasn’t lucky enough to have an employer nice enough to provide insurance through her job. Even people with insurance often times face financial ruin. Especially before Obamacare was enacted.
  - coolaliasbro 9y ago
    Wrong--it is certainly the case that many insured individuals are left insolvent after necessary but costly medical procedures.
  - knz 9y ago
    > They don't face financial ruin, unless they don't have health insurance In the age of high deductible plans I'm not sure this is accurate. For many Americans the $5,000+ for a deductible each year is unsustainable, especially if someone on the plan has an ongoing issue or they have to meet the deductible multiple times (changing jobs or an issue than spans calendar years).
  - ordinaryradical 9y ago
    I am fighting my insurance company right now on a charge that I didn't have health insurance when I used their services this January despite having enrolled last September. The idea that once you have insurance the problems just magically go away is wishful thinking. These companies are predatory and stupid, and if I hadn't taken the time to read every single line for the 4-page, 10-pt font bill they sent me I wouldn't have even known they were charging me as though I was uninsured.
  - learc83 9y ago
    >They don't face financial ruin, unless they don't have health insurance Without the ACA, this wasn't possible for millions of people. With the ACA it was still too expensive for millions of people. With the ACA minus the individual mandate it will be too expensive for even more. Also before the ACA, health care plans came with yearly and lifetime coverage limits. Coverage limits that were far below what care would cost in many cases. So even with insurance you could still face financial ruin.
- conanbatt 9y ago
  > A person ought not face financial ruin. The logical consequence of this is that any cost must be paid. And if the person cant pay it someone else does. So if someone gets a rare cancer whose treatment has 1% effectiveness and costs millions, it should be paid by someone else. The principle is wishful thinking, not economics. We as people every day make trades of our life for money. We pick a means of transportation riskier than other to save some money, we choose to use a bike to be physically healthier in the long run but expose to short term risks. We eat those cheese french friends with a beer, or smoke. Etc etc. We are no strangers to paying our pleasures with our life. - It is the tendency of all men to magnify their own services and to disparage services rendered them, and private matters would be poorly regulated if there was not some standard of value. This guarantee we have not (or we hardly have it), in public affairs. Americans often believe that universal healthcare is this pristine ideal that will solve everything, but thats because you haven't analyzed the consequences of it and its real life consequences. The problem of healthcare in the us is not public-vs-private, its the extreme regulatory environment.
  - sykh 9y ago
    Your first paragraph is false and indeed can not be true in any system that rations care. All health care systems ration care since no soceity has enough resources to cover and pay for all possible needed health services. Here resources includes number of qualified workers.
    - conanbatt 9y ago
      If its rationed then some people are going to be left out, and the moral argument crumbles, as people that need it don't get it.
      - sykh 9y ago
        The rationing can be in a moral way or in an immoral way. All systems ration care. Most do so in a much more morally palatable way than the U.S.
  - ScottBurson 9y ago
monocasa 9y ago
> You can't start any economic argument by saying that paying any cost is a must. You will get fleeced. ... in an open market.
- conanbatt 9y ago
  In a government program you get fleeced twice, first by extra taxes, and second by worse services.
  - sykh 9y ago
    The services could be worse but aren’t necessarily worse. It’s foolish to think that any government service is worse than a private one. Also, universal healthcare doesn’t necessarily mean government run.
    - conanbatt 9y ago
      It's foolish to believe the state is more efficient that private actors, that is just contrary to real life experience.
      - Frondo 9y ago
        It's foolish to believe that private actors can by definition ever be as efficient as the state. Private actors, by definition, must extract something from any service to pay themselves. The government has no overhead. It can run with absolutely no profit and that is its intended model. A private health care company that returns zero profit to its shareholders? Shut 'er down. A private transit company that returns zero profit to its shareholders? Shut 'er down. And yet, government services can run indefinitely at break-even because they're not beholden to the market. Only government can be so efficient--the private sector always loses efficiency through someone scraping something off the top.
        conanbatt 9y ago
        > The government has no overhead Realz.

sykh 9y ago

It is a well known fact that all medical care systems ration care. A person in America who gets cancer, say, often times faces bankrupt and financial ruin. The same can not be said of people in other wealthy nations. I fail to see your point. All healthcare systems ration care. Not all of them lead to financial ruin at the rate the American healthcare system does. My statement stands. A person ought not face financial ruin. It may be the case that there aren’t enough resources to treat the disease it this does not negate the belief that they shouldn’t face financial ruin.

DamnYuppie 9y ago
They don't face financial ruin, unless they don't have health insurance and or they opt for various drugs that aren't covered by their plan. Before everyone screams that all things should be covered please consider that due diligence has actually been done and the drug was considered to either not be effective or not needed based upon other existing treatments.
- sykh 9y ago
  The idea of universal care is that everyone have insurance. Before Obamacare my sister got cancer. She wasn’t lucky enough to have an employer nice enough to provide insurance through her job. Even people with insurance often times face financial ruin. Especially before Obamacare was enacted.
- coolaliasbro 9y ago
  Wrong--it is certainly the case that many insured individuals are left insolvent after necessary but costly medical procedures.
- knz 9y ago
  > They don't face financial ruin, unless they don't have health insurance In the age of high deductible plans I'm not sure this is accurate. For many Americans the $5,000+ for a deductible each year is unsustainable, especially if someone on the plan has an ongoing issue or they have to meet the deductible multiple times (changing jobs or an issue than spans calendar years).
- ordinaryradical 9y ago
  I am fighting my insurance company right now on a charge that I didn't have health insurance when I used their services this January despite having enrolled last September. The idea that once you have insurance the problems just magically go away is wishful thinking. These companies are predatory and stupid, and if I hadn't taken the time to read every single line for the 4-page, 10-pt font bill they sent me I wouldn't have even known they were charging me as though I was uninsured.
- learc83 9y ago
  >They don't face financial ruin, unless they don't have health insurance Without the ACA, this wasn't possible for millions of people. With the ACA it was still too expensive for millions of people. With the ACA minus the individual mandate it will be too expensive for even more. Also before the ACA, health care plans came with yearly and lifetime coverage limits. Coverage limits that were far below what care would cost in many cases. So even with insurance you could still face financial ruin.
conanbatt 9y ago
> A person ought not face financial ruin. The logical consequence of this is that any cost must be paid. And if the person cant pay it someone else does. So if someone gets a rare cancer whose treatment has 1% effectiveness and costs millions, it should be paid by someone else. The principle is wishful thinking, not economics. We as people every day make trades of our life for money. We pick a means of transportation riskier than other to save some money, we choose to use a bike to be physically healthier in the long run but expose to short term risks. We eat those cheese french friends with a beer, or smoke. Etc etc. We are no strangers to paying our pleasures with our life. - It is the tendency of all men to magnify their own services and to disparage services rendered them, and private matters would be poorly regulated if there was not some standard of value. This guarantee we have not (or we hardly have it), in public affairs. Americans often believe that universal healthcare is this pristine ideal that will solve everything, but thats because you haven't analyzed the consequences of it and its real life consequences. The problem of healthcare in the us is not public-vs-private, its the extreme regulatory environment.
- sykh 9y ago
  Your first paragraph is false and indeed can not be true in any system that rations care. All health care systems ration care since no soceity has enough resources to cover and pay for all possible needed health services. Here resources includes number of qualified workers.
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    If its rationed then some people are going to be left out, and the moral argument crumbles, as people that need it don't get it.
    - sykh 9y ago
      The rationing can be in a moral way or in an immoral way. All systems ration care. Most do so in a much more morally palatable way than the U.S.
- ScottBurson 9y ago

monocasa 9y ago

> You can't start any economic argument by saying that paying any cost is a must. You will get fleeced. ... in an open market.

conanbatt 9y ago
In a government program you get fleeced twice, first by extra taxes, and second by worse services.
- sykh 9y ago
  The services could be worse but aren’t necessarily worse. It’s foolish to think that any government service is worse than a private one. Also, universal healthcare doesn’t necessarily mean government run.
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    It's foolish to believe the state is more efficient that private actors, that is just contrary to real life experience.
    - Frondo 9y ago
      It's foolish to believe that private actors can by definition ever be as efficient as the state. Private actors, by definition, must extract something from any service to pay themselves. The government has no overhead. It can run with absolutely no profit and that is its intended model. A private health care company that returns zero profit to its shareholders? Shut 'er down. A private transit company that returns zero profit to its shareholders? Shut 'er down. And yet, government services can run indefinitely at break-even because they're not beholden to the market. Only government can be so efficient--the private sector always loses efficiency through someone scraping something off the top.
      - conanbatt 9y ago
        > The government has no overhead Realz.