3 ms·
That doesn't necessarily follow. Whether or not it gets cheaper or more expensive depends on how likely the new people are to get sick compared to the other peo
by ksdale 7y ago
That doesn't necessarily follow. Whether or not it gets cheaper or more expensive depends on how likely the new people are to get sick compared to the other people in the pool. Adding a bunch of sick people raises the costs for everyone, adding a bunch of healthy, young people (and making them pay) lowers the costs for everyone else.
I agree that at this point, we'd be far better off with a single payer system, but it's certainly not cheaper for everyone.
- kaibee 7y ago> Adding a bunch of sick people raises the costs for everyone Sick people without health insurance still get healthcare. They just don't pay, go bankrupt, probably cost the system way more than if they had preventative care paid for. Then they get a medical bankruptcy, the hospital eats the cost but raises prices on everyone else to stay afloat. Now, they might have a higher mortality rate and so end up not costing as much as if they had insurance from the beginning, but I think a large amount of the cost of the uninsured is already priced in.
- ksdale 7y agoI agree with all of this, which is why I said I think a single payer system is the best way to go, but the parent mentioned insurance being cheaper, which it would not be. The total cost of the whole system is lower per capita when everyone participates, but the cost to certain participants is much higher, depending on what the system looked like before.