4 ms·

If that's something you accept, then you also must accept that the moment you get sick and your health insurance decides to screw you over, that no one will be

If that's something you accept, then you also must accept that the moment you get sick and your health insurance decides to screw you over, that no one will be there to help you. You'll go bankrupt. You'll become homeless at the later ages of your life. And you'll need to find your own way to survive on the streets. For me, since I saw first hand what the healthcare system did to my parents? No one should go through that. They had 'good enough' healthcare and it still financially and physically destroyed them. You think you have good enough health insurance? You don't.

rossenberg79 8y ago
So what? I accept the risk, like any other risk in life. Not sure why those risks mean I have to get on board with a complete overhaul to something I don’t believe will work, as if that will be less risky.
- grecy 8y ago
  > So what? I accept the risk, like any other risk in life You say that now, but the reality is much different when it comes down to it. Like everyone else, you'll scream and cry like a stuck pig when it's your Mother/Sister/Daughter/Son who get unbelievably sick through no fault of their own and die early because of a lack of money. The system as it exists today is nothing short of disgraceful. It's sad that you just accept it and have no interest in improve it.
  - rossenberg79 8y ago
    You are stating that this is the reality as if it’s a certain thing. I don’t have reason to believe my insurance will suddenly drop coverage when I need it. I don’t think that’s a huge risk. Your hypothetical world isn’t all that safe either, because when the government says no, that answer is final. There is no other option, there is no other way even if I wanted to pay. That’s just as bad as coverage being dropped, and perhaps much more likely given my faith in the government to do things efficiently these days.
    - grecy 8y ago
      > I don’t have reason to believe my insurance will suddenly drop coverage when I need it. I don’t think that’s a huge risk. Even for lukemia, or lung cancer? and that's assuming you go to work for the rest of your life. What happens when you get so sick with one of the above you can't go to work and you no longer have insurance? > Your hypothetical world isn’t all that safe either, because when the government says no, that answer is final. There is no other option, there is no other way even if I wanted to pay That's simply not true. I've had personal experience in Australia, Canada and the UK, and in each of those systems you can choose to pay for private coverage & care if you so wish. I have never felt the need. EDIT: Also, I thought of another reason. You use the word "I" or "Me" 6 times. Does your grandmother have the same "bulletproof" coverage you do? Your nieces and nephews? Your Sister and her husband? How about your distant cousins? How about even your best friends, neighbors, and their loved ones. It's not all about you. Think about how your loved ones will be impacted, because they just might not have the same coverage you do.
    - fzeroracer 8y ago
      We didn't have reason to believe that we'd lose coverage either. Until my mother had her stroke, and the insurance company fought tooth and nail to not pay out, ultimately resulting in bankruptcy. Are you confident you'll never go through a stroke?
    - lordnacho 8y ago
      > I don’t have reason to believe my insurance will suddenly drop coverage when I need it. I don’t think that’s a huge risk. There's loads of cases, including one in this thread, about people who thought they were covered but weren't. This is really a bad situation to be in if it happens, and it should worry you every time there's an event. After all, the insurance company has direct interest in not covering you. Now the government does as well, this is true. But those cases, eg in the UK it's talked about a fair bit, tend to be where there's a judgement that a treat is neither not sufficiently tested to be useable, or simply not worth the cost-benefit, eg it's expensive and only buys the patient a few more weeks of life. So it's true what you say, but it's worth considering what the balance of risks is: a healthcare co that has an interest against you every time, and has been shown to fight, or the government, which normally only denies treatment in rare borderline cases. I'd say a big part of it is particular to US culture: the healtcare cos have been shown to not be that easy to get money out of. Somewhere like Switzerland also has private healthcare, but they don't compete in the same way. Everyone must have insurance, and you won't be paying out of pocket above some limit. The companies are not famous for screwing everyone, and compete to provide extra service (eg hotel-like rooms when you have a kid).

rossenberg79 8y ago

So what? I accept the risk, like any other risk in life. Not sure why those risks mean I have to get on board with a complete overhaul to something I don’t believe will work, as if that will be less risky.

grecy 8y ago
> So what? I accept the risk, like any other risk in life You say that now, but the reality is much different when it comes down to it. Like everyone else, you'll scream and cry like a stuck pig when it's your Mother/Sister/Daughter/Son who get unbelievably sick through no fault of their own and die early because of a lack of money. The system as it exists today is nothing short of disgraceful. It's sad that you just accept it and have no interest in improve it.
- rossenberg79 8y ago
  You are stating that this is the reality as if it’s a certain thing. I don’t have reason to believe my insurance will suddenly drop coverage when I need it. I don’t think that’s a huge risk. Your hypothetical world isn’t all that safe either, because when the government says no, that answer is final. There is no other option, there is no other way even if I wanted to pay. That’s just as bad as coverage being dropped, and perhaps much more likely given my faith in the government to do things efficiently these days.
  - grecy 8y ago
    > I don’t have reason to believe my insurance will suddenly drop coverage when I need it. I don’t think that’s a huge risk. Even for lukemia, or lung cancer? and that's assuming you go to work for the rest of your life. What happens when you get so sick with one of the above you can't go to work and you no longer have insurance? > Your hypothetical world isn’t all that safe either, because when the government says no, that answer is final. There is no other option, there is no other way even if I wanted to pay That's simply not true. I've had personal experience in Australia, Canada and the UK, and in each of those systems you can choose to pay for private coverage & care if you so wish. I have never felt the need. EDIT: Also, I thought of another reason. You use the word "I" or "Me" 6 times. Does your grandmother have the same "bulletproof" coverage you do? Your nieces and nephews? Your Sister and her husband? How about your distant cousins? How about even your best friends, neighbors, and their loved ones. It's not all about you. Think about how your loved ones will be impacted, because they just might not have the same coverage you do.
  - fzeroracer 8y ago
    We didn't have reason to believe that we'd lose coverage either. Until my mother had her stroke, and the insurance company fought tooth and nail to not pay out, ultimately resulting in bankruptcy. Are you confident you'll never go through a stroke?
  - lordnacho 8y ago
    > I don’t have reason to believe my insurance will suddenly drop coverage when I need it. I don’t think that’s a huge risk. There's loads of cases, including one in this thread, about people who thought they were covered but weren't. This is really a bad situation to be in if it happens, and it should worry you every time there's an event. After all, the insurance company has direct interest in not covering you. Now the government does as well, this is true. But those cases, eg in the UK it's talked about a fair bit, tend to be where there's a judgement that a treat is neither not sufficiently tested to be useable, or simply not worth the cost-benefit, eg it's expensive and only buys the patient a few more weeks of life. So it's true what you say, but it's worth considering what the balance of risks is: a healthcare co that has an interest against you every time, and has been shown to fight, or the government, which normally only denies treatment in rare borderline cases. I'd say a big part of it is particular to US culture: the healtcare cos have been shown to not be that easy to get money out of. Somewhere like Switzerland also has private healthcare, but they don't compete in the same way. Everyone must have insurance, and you won't be paying out of pocket above some limit. The companies are not famous for screwing everyone, and compete to provide extra service (eg hotel-like rooms when you have a kid).