5 ms·

The lowest income people in the US also qualify for free healthcare through Medicaid. It covers ~20% of the US population (that number also includes those with

by tdhoot 7y ago

The lowest income people in the US also qualify for free healthcare through Medicaid. It covers ~20% of the US population (that number also includes those with disabilities).

negrit 7y ago
Everyone qualify for healthcare in France, you don't have to take part of a pissing contest about who is the poorest...
ineedasername 7y ago
Medicaid isn't bad, it's better than many bottom-tier private plans, but it's also got some problems. For one, finding a doctor can be hard. Not so much with general practitioners, but definitely with specialists. Also if you're in the higher qualified income band, you can still get stuck with 10 to 20% of the bill, and making 150% of the poverty limit doesn't make you any better equipped to deal with $100,000 in expenses than if you made a little less money... It actually pays to be poorer. Not all prescriptions are covered either, level of coverage varies by state. Sure the pharmacy has to give it to you if you say you can't pay, but you still owe the money and can get sent to collections, have wages garnished, have to declare bankruptcy, etc. Medicaid simply isn't the healthcare panacea for the poor that some make it out to be when they say, "But the poor already have coverage!". And it ignores the fact that there's millions of people just above the income cutoffs whose state of poorness is pretty indistinguishable from those that get coverage, but they're still completely on their own.
- rayiner 7y ago
  That’s what the ACA is for! For people up to 400% of the poverty line, the ACA caps premiums at 10% of income. That’s what you’d pay in health insurance taxes in France.
  - AstralStorm 7y ago
    Actually 7% in France, basing it off budget for 2017. The tax burden is higher because education, public transport, agriculture and social (mostly retirement) are paid in tax rather than mostly privately. US has the private system for retirement plans and it sometimes fails utterly. The nationalized one does not, though it may not be as big of a payout. And education saddles people with debt, as well as causes cost (admin) inflation.
  - ineedasername 7y ago
    If we're talking about universal coverage in other countries and the potential for crippling healthcare debt in the US, then pointing to the ACA really doesn't help your argument here. First: 400% of the poverty line is not very high, so premiums for people just over that line can still be very unaffordable. Second and more importantly, ACA coverage is generally not very good, especially at the low silver tier covered in that %10 income cap. Pointing at the ACA ignores the fact than plenty of people with coverage still are faced with insurmountable debt, sometimes loss of home, and often bankruptcy. As long as hundreds of thousands of people each year have bankruptcies tied to medical issues, there's nothing about the US system you can point to, be it Medicaid, Medicare, ACA subsidies or anything else, that can surmount the argument that the US system fails people in this respect when compared to other countries with universal coverage. I'm not saying those countries are always better in every respect, but one thing they have is that they don't cause their citizens to lose their entire way of life, their home, and ability to live above poverty levels when faced with treatable medical issues.

by tdhoot 7y ago

The lowest income people in the US also qualify for free healthcare through Medicaid. It covers ~20% of the US population (that number also includes those with disabilities).

negrit 7y ago

Everyone qualify for healthcare in France, you don't have to take part of a pissing contest about who is the poorest...

ineedasername 7y ago

Medicaid isn't bad, it's better than many bottom-tier private plans, but it's also got some problems. For one, finding a doctor can be hard. Not so much with general practitioners, but definitely with specialists. Also if you're in the higher qualified income band, you can still get stuck with 10 to 20% of the bill, and making 150% of the poverty limit doesn't make you any better equipped to deal with $100,000 in expenses than if you made a little less money... It actually pays to be poorer. Not all prescriptions are covered either, level of coverage varies by state. Sure the pharmacy has to give it to you if you say you can't pay, but you still owe the money and can get sent to collections, have wages garnished, have to declare bankruptcy, etc. Medicaid simply isn't the healthcare panacea for the poor that some make it out to be when they say, "But the poor already have coverage!". And it ignores the fact that there's millions of people just above the income cutoffs whose state of poorness is pretty indistinguishable from those that get coverage, but they're still completely on their own.

rayiner 7y ago
That’s what the ACA is for! For people up to 400% of the poverty line, the ACA caps premiums at 10% of income. That’s what you’d pay in health insurance taxes in France.
- AstralStorm 7y ago
  Actually 7% in France, basing it off budget for 2017. The tax burden is higher because education, public transport, agriculture and social (mostly retirement) are paid in tax rather than mostly privately. US has the private system for retirement plans and it sometimes fails utterly. The nationalized one does not, though it may not be as big of a payout. And education saddles people with debt, as well as causes cost (admin) inflation.
- ineedasername 7y ago
  If we're talking about universal coverage in other countries and the potential for crippling healthcare debt in the US, then pointing to the ACA really doesn't help your argument here. First: 400% of the poverty line is not very high, so premiums for people just over that line can still be very unaffordable. Second and more importantly, ACA coverage is generally not very good, especially at the low silver tier covered in that %10 income cap. Pointing at the ACA ignores the fact than plenty of people with coverage still are faced with insurmountable debt, sometimes loss of home, and often bankruptcy. As long as hundreds of thousands of people each year have bankruptcies tied to medical issues, there's nothing about the US system you can point to, be it Medicaid, Medicare, ACA subsidies or anything else, that can surmount the argument that the US system fails people in this respect when compared to other countries with universal coverage. I'm not saying those countries are always better in every respect, but one thing they have is that they don't cause their citizens to lose their entire way of life, their home, and ability to live above poverty levels when faced with treatable medical issues.