4 ms·

Also whats best for me is rarely ever universal. People really love to jump on the wagon for things like universal Healthcare in the states. You don't need Heal

Also whats best for me is rarely ever universal. People really love to jump on the wagon for things like universal Healthcare in the states. You don't need Healthcare in your 20s. Most people don't, they need something like a disaster insurance with high deductables so that if it turns out they are in the statistical minority and get cancer in their 20s they do t get fucked. They don't need regular subsidized hospital visits they pay thousands of dollars I insurance premiums for so they can have a 20$ year checkup... It's The idea here is that "of we regulate it people will have access to safer livelihoods" the reality is that you are raising the barrier to entry for that particular lifestyle and in effect reducing lower class socio economic accessibility. Just because the feds mandate all new cars have backup cams doesn't mean people can afford the costs associated with it. People should have the ability to leverage risk to better their financial well being. Anything else and you have no class mobility and no autonomy.

pas 7y ago
I live in a country with universal health care. I haven't seen my doctor in 3-4 years. And last time I saw him it was because the flu or a particularly nasty cold. People pay a fixed percent of their income into the HC system. Furthermore, while you are attending school (university, college, whatever), you are automatically covered. There was a small token copay system for a few years about 10 years ago, that helped to cut down wait queues. (It was something like 2USD for each visit, because there was a sentiment, that too many people went to the doctor unnecessarily.) There are of course possible ways to optimize it a lot more by incentivizing healthy lifestyle choices (eg. risk weighted additional premium to counter obesity, smoking, drinking, etc). The effect on mobility is nothing since it's a percentage "tax". Autonomy is nice, but cleaning up uninsured carcasses also has a cost, so autonomous folks should at least prepay that.
- defnotashton2 7y ago
  Proved my point. If it costs 100$ to not be desperately poor, and you make 100$ and the Gov takes 60% of your 100$ you still only have 40$. Doesn't matter if the tax is a flat % or not you still don't have the money to not be poor. All so that you could visit the doctor 1 every 5 years for a flue without having to pay.. Alternatively If you lived freely, you could make 100$, decide you pay 60$for insurance if you want to feel safer and get the benefits from that service orrrr you could say "man I don't need that service right now in my life, so I'm going to invest that money instead while I'm young" and then not be poor.. Yea 50 years ago when nobody had health insurance the bodies piling up were a burden on society because everyone was dying because nobody could afford medical treatment..
  - pas 7y ago
    I seem to have missed your excellent syllogism, but how have you reached the conclusion that it costs a 100 bucks to be not poor? Plus I already live quite freely, thanks. I have no problem with having an option for people that would need to pay only when the need arises. (And they would pay full price, go into debt, or they would be euthanized if they haven't paid at least X years of HC insurance plus they have no money, nor any reasonable chance of making some after recovery.) That would be a nice natural experiment.

pas 7y ago

I live in a country with universal health care. I haven't seen my doctor in 3-4 years. And last time I saw him it was because the flu or a particularly nasty cold. People pay a fixed percent of their income into the HC system. Furthermore, while you are attending school (university, college, whatever), you are automatically covered. There was a small token copay system for a few years about 10 years ago, that helped to cut down wait queues. (It was something like 2USD for each visit, because there was a sentiment, that too many people went to the doctor unnecessarily.) There are of course possible ways to optimize it a lot more by incentivizing healthy lifestyle choices (eg. risk weighted additional premium to counter obesity, smoking, drinking, etc). The effect on mobility is nothing since it's a percentage "tax". Autonomy is nice, but cleaning up uninsured carcasses also has a cost, so autonomous folks should at least prepay that.

defnotashton2 7y ago
Proved my point. If it costs 100$ to not be desperately poor, and you make 100$ and the Gov takes 60% of your 100$ you still only have 40$. Doesn't matter if the tax is a flat % or not you still don't have the money to not be poor. All so that you could visit the doctor 1 every 5 years for a flue without having to pay.. Alternatively If you lived freely, you could make 100$, decide you pay 60$for insurance if you want to feel safer and get the benefits from that service orrrr you could say "man I don't need that service right now in my life, so I'm going to invest that money instead while I'm young" and then not be poor.. Yea 50 years ago when nobody had health insurance the bodies piling up were a burden on society because everyone was dying because nobody could afford medical treatment..
- pas 7y ago
  I seem to have missed your excellent syllogism, but how have you reached the conclusion that it costs a 100 bucks to be not poor? Plus I already live quite freely, thanks. I have no problem with having an option for people that would need to pay only when the need arises. (And they would pay full price, go into debt, or they would be euthanized if they haven't paid at least X years of HC insurance plus they have no money, nor any reasonable chance of making some after recovery.) That would be a nice natural experiment.