3 ms·

Seems like a reasonable ask. Gov't pays for preventative care like physicals, flu shots, and STI testing (sort of already happening on the last bit through Plan

Seems like a reasonable ask. Gov't pays for preventative care like physicals, flu shots, and STI testing (sort of already happening on the last bit through Planned Parenthood), insurance takes care of traumatic events. Seems to me though the greatest cost in healthcare, and thus causing the greatest amount of contention, are chronic ailments that can't really be classified as preventative or traumatic, and require constant doctor visits to treat. Care for the elderly is a similar story since they make up most doctor visits and are the biggest consumers of medications overall.

balls187 7y ago
What if we pay for affordable preventative care, and the government covers the cost of traumatic events?
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  What about chronic diseases that require frequent treatment?
  - balls187 7y ago
    Good question. Along those lines: care and treatment for developmental disorders.
  - TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
    What about them? The point of collaborative health care is that risks, benefits, and costs are spread out, to everyone's benefit. There is no magic market finger threatening to push you into bankruptcy and/or an early grave just because cancer picked you instead of someone else, and your co-pays are higher than you can afford. Ditto for chronic congenital conditions. It's all the same. Yes, you're probably contributing to someone else's care, especially when you're young and healthy. So what? You won't be young forever, and you probably won't be healthy forever either. Meanwhile whatever care you need is provided to you at lower individual cost than a privatised system - with the added benefit that it also provides significant employment, supports medical research, and provides private-sector opportunities for specialised suppliers of technology, consulting, and other solutions. The only people who appear to lose out are shareholders. They have to make their money elsewhere. In fact their opportunities are enhanced rather than diminished, because affordable low-risk public health care leaves more money on the table for investment and new business development.
    - kerkeslager 7y ago
      It seems you've interpreted my comment as being against public healthcare, when in fact I am rabidly for public healthcare. I was pointing out that a part-private, part-public solution still doesn't really handle medical care well. We need a fully-public healthcare system.

balls187 7y ago

What if we pay for affordable preventative care, and the government covers the cost of traumatic events?

kerkeslager 7y ago
What about chronic diseases that require frequent treatment?
- balls187 7y ago
  Good question. Along those lines: care and treatment for developmental disorders.
- TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
  What about them? The point of collaborative health care is that risks, benefits, and costs are spread out, to everyone's benefit. There is no magic market finger threatening to push you into bankruptcy and/or an early grave just because cancer picked you instead of someone else, and your co-pays are higher than you can afford. Ditto for chronic congenital conditions. It's all the same. Yes, you're probably contributing to someone else's care, especially when you're young and healthy. So what? You won't be young forever, and you probably won't be healthy forever either. Meanwhile whatever care you need is provided to you at lower individual cost than a privatised system - with the added benefit that it also provides significant employment, supports medical research, and provides private-sector opportunities for specialised suppliers of technology, consulting, and other solutions. The only people who appear to lose out are shareholders. They have to make their money elsewhere. In fact their opportunities are enhanced rather than diminished, because affordable low-risk public health care leaves more money on the table for investment and new business development.
  - kerkeslager 7y ago
    It seems you've interpreted my comment as being against public healthcare, when in fact I am rabidly for public healthcare. I was pointing out that a part-private, part-public solution still doesn't really handle medical care well. We need a fully-public healthcare system.