2 ms·
By providing better healthcare, sure. Most rich people are usually willing to pay good fraction of their net worth to live 10-20 years longer.
by fooker 7y ago
By providing better healthcare, sure.
Most rich people are usually willing to pay good fraction of their net worth to live 10-20 years longer.
- mc32 7y agoWait, are you saying the public option could result in reduced lifetimes compared to top level private insurance? It cannot be that drastic.
- kian 7y agoIt seems almost certain with the dawning age of biotechnology right around the corner that private options are going to completely dominate any public options conceived right now.
- mindslight 7y agoPrivate services may provide treatment with amazing outcomes, but that doesn't necessarily mean that private payment plans will be needed to financialize those costs. As a well-off individual, why would you want to give a bunch of money to a company with the same eventual dynamic wherein they decide to not cover the specific treatment you eventually need? As an insurer, why would you want to be in the position of customers expecting you cover unknown unknowns? If you're aiming to cover boutique treatments, then your risk model becomes what expensive new treatments are invented! Furthermore, once you're talking about that kind of market, there's no need to bundle everything into a single plan. Rather there is a baseline of modern medicine that can be predictably provided (however that is), and then people with more resources can direct paying for hopeful emerging treatments.
- fooker 7y agoI am from a country with universal free healthcare (sans medicine costs, which are subsidized and fairly cheap). Private options are significantly better than the free one, and there is some social stigma associated with going to a government hospital.