4 ms·

And thus, the problem with for profit insurance. I know nothing of economics (so I'm not making claims how insurance should be), but it's a shame that we have t

And thus, the problem with for profit insurance. I know nothing of economics (so I'm not making claims how insurance should be), but it's a shame that we have to fear insurers knowing that we'll be sick and rejecting our quality of life. As a "modern" civilization I just don't think you should be concerned with for-profit entities deciding you'll cost too much and denying your basic quality of life.

luxuryballs 7y ago
Even if it’s not for profit and it’s just a sharing pool your share would need to be way higher if we knew that you would be taking a big chunk of everyone’s contributions no?
- jnty 7y ago
  No - the whole point of pooling would surely be that you don't pay for your own misfortune (or profit from good fortune.) It really just becomes a poorly implemented version of general taxation though. Funding health and social care from taxation is of course not a new idea...
  - luxuryballs 7y ago
    Yeah but if you don’t balance it against the risk factors you blow out your pool... similar to why taxation wouldn’t be sustainable, you’d end up with a significant portion of the population eating the pool without contributing, and a very small minority being forced to cover them, effectively farming “consumer humans” and thus an ever growing tax rate.
    - jnty 7y ago
      Does the evidence from countries with tax-funded healthcare and social care bear this out? Are you assuming that everyone will eventually have a Japan-style ageing population timebomb?
    - zaptheimpaler 7y ago
      Somehow this system works for 50+ other countries in the world, but when it comes to the US its only discussed in hypotheticals.. completely insane. Somehow the others already have a functioning system without a tax rate of 100%...
- asdkhadsj 7y ago
  Do I pay less to public education if I have no kids? Do I pay less to fire or law enforcement if I've had no fires or incidents with law enforcement? So why would the inverse be true for healthcare? All the healthy people would pay less than the unhealthy people? If the system is designed correctly, we all would pay enough that we all get coverage. Full stop. If we didn't, it would basically be "for profit" even if it was government run. Or, at least as I inferred how you envisioned it from your comment. This isn't a reflection of you or your comment, but it makes me think. I'll never understand why my neighbors in America seem so obsessed with a "fair share" and ensuring that no one takes more than them. They're so worried with people exploiting the system that they happily let people die whose only fault was getting sick. Ironic for a nation who claims to be the largest Christian nation. I happily pay my taxes to what I believe are in the common good. Education and stability are huge ones in my mind. My neighbor has kids and I don't, but I happily pay to help his kids go to public school. Why? Because I want them to be educated, thoughtful and productive members of society. Not just for them, but for me as well. Even beyond self good though, I just can't ignore the sick. That families have to suffer a fathers cancer while simultaneously wondering how they'll pay for it is sickening to me. This doesn't sound like something a "Great" country would do. Christians confuse me.
- ip26 7y ago
  That's the right way to think about it when choice is involved, for example smoking. You choose to smoke, you belong in a high risk pool. But if it's something that could happen to any one of us, then we all belong in the same pool. We know a congenital heart defect is going to be expensive- but any one of us could have been born with one. I think there is a coming fight over whether insurance can pool & price discriminate based on other things too, like healthy eating or active vs sedentary lifestyle. Eating junk food & laying on the couch your whole life has always been high risk but now with technology it could be measured & priced.

luxuryballs 7y ago

Even if it’s not for profit and it’s just a sharing pool your share would need to be way higher if we knew that you would be taking a big chunk of everyone’s contributions no?

jnty 7y ago
No - the whole point of pooling would surely be that you don't pay for your own misfortune (or profit from good fortune.) It really just becomes a poorly implemented version of general taxation though. Funding health and social care from taxation is of course not a new idea...
- luxuryballs 7y ago
  Yeah but if you don’t balance it against the risk factors you blow out your pool... similar to why taxation wouldn’t be sustainable, you’d end up with a significant portion of the population eating the pool without contributing, and a very small minority being forced to cover them, effectively farming “consumer humans” and thus an ever growing tax rate.
  - jnty 7y ago
    Does the evidence from countries with tax-funded healthcare and social care bear this out? Are you assuming that everyone will eventually have a Japan-style ageing population timebomb?
  - zaptheimpaler 7y ago
    Somehow this system works for 50+ other countries in the world, but when it comes to the US its only discussed in hypotheticals.. completely insane. Somehow the others already have a functioning system without a tax rate of 100%...
asdkhadsj 7y ago
Do I pay less to public education if I have no kids? Do I pay less to fire or law enforcement if I've had no fires or incidents with law enforcement? So why would the inverse be true for healthcare? All the healthy people would pay less than the unhealthy people? If the system is designed correctly, we all would pay enough that we all get coverage. Full stop. If we didn't, it would basically be "for profit" even if it was government run. Or, at least as I inferred how you envisioned it from your comment. This isn't a reflection of you or your comment, but it makes me think. I'll never understand why my neighbors in America seem so obsessed with a "fair share" and ensuring that no one takes more than them. They're so worried with people exploiting the system that they happily let people die whose only fault was getting sick. Ironic for a nation who claims to be the largest Christian nation. I happily pay my taxes to what I believe are in the common good. Education and stability are huge ones in my mind. My neighbor has kids and I don't, but I happily pay to help his kids go to public school. Why? Because I want them to be educated, thoughtful and productive members of society. Not just for them, but for me as well. Even beyond self good though, I just can't ignore the sick. That families have to suffer a fathers cancer while simultaneously wondering how they'll pay for it is sickening to me. This doesn't sound like something a "Great" country would do. Christians confuse me.
ip26 7y ago
That's the right way to think about it when choice is involved, for example smoking. You choose to smoke, you belong in a high risk pool. But if it's something that could happen to any one of us, then we all belong in the same pool. We know a congenital heart defect is going to be expensive- but any one of us could have been born with one. I think there is a coming fight over whether insurance can pool & price discriminate based on other things too, like healthy eating or active vs sedentary lifestyle. Eating junk food & laying on the couch your whole life has always been high risk but now with technology it could be measured & priced.