5 ms·

> Surely as a species we can find the resources to buy these children some pills We did: it's called universal healthcare - and many of our species' nation-sta

> Surely as a species we can find the resources to buy these children some pills We did: it's called universal healthcare - and many of our species' nation-states already use this system and have been seeing the overall positive results for about a century now - but some societies, for a variety of reasons, do not.

jessaustin 6y ago
One supposes Kenya and other, poorer nations in Africa will appreciate this advice, and then they'll snap their fingers and all will be well...
- neves 6y ago
  I think the parent was talking about the USA.
  - refurb 6y ago
    It's actually relatively straightforward to get Medicaid coverage for children in the US. There is a specific program to cover them (and pregnant women). https://www.medicaid.gov/chip/index.html https://www.medicaid.gov/chip/index.html "The Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) is a joint federal and state program that provides health coverage to uninsured children in families with incomes too high to qualify for Medicaid, but too low to afford private coverage."
    - tialaramex 6y ago
      I appreciate that for many Americans this feels like it's enough, or at least almost enough, but it's nowhere close. Dozens (every US state and territory is handled separately) of separate systems in which you can fill out a bunch of paperwork to apply to have insurance for children is nowhere close to the zero friction "free at the point of use" goal of universal healthcare. Some countries with universal healthcare don't do a great job of achieving zero friction, but they're all way ahead of a disjointed paperwork process that only results in getting insurance that ought to have been free for everyone from the outset. And, one of the most obvious problems is: CHIP only covers children you can provide an SSN for. So maybe Steve, aged 4 is covered because you had him in San Antonio but his older sister Esther was born in Mexico and travelled over the border with you. She can't get CHIP because she doesn't have an SSN and powerful people want to make sure it stays that way.
      - tristor 6y ago
        Esther’s situation is problematic, but extending socialized benefits to non-citizens is a nonstarter and isn’t the case in any of the other Western societies that supporters of single-payer universal healthcare would like to model the US system on. I am not going to enumerate all the reasons why it’s a nonstarter, but at least one is that it massively increases the cost of any such social program to a point it becomes both practically and politically untenable. I’ve visited and used healthcare services in many of those other Western countries as a foreigner, and every single time I was required to file paperwork and pay a deposit in cash (or rarely by card) before receiving services. I would not have expected any differently, as I’m not a tax-paying citizen in those countries. On a mostly unrelated note, I write this while currently residing in San Antonio (as used in your example scenario).
        cheerlessbog 6y ago
        I assume you mean “non legal residents” as typically universal healthcare covers legal residents. Do you have evidence that it makes financial sense to leave unauthorized residents (likely) untreated? One might imagine they’re disproportionately young and healthy and not suffering from terminal cancer if they came here to work in fields. Going to the ER uninsured is very expensive for society.
        tristor 6y ago
        I was legally in every country I’ve been in, including several where I became temporarily resident. In every case as a non-citizen I was obligated to pay and was not covered under the social medicine scheme. I know the rules on non-citizen permanent residents are different in most countries however. I would believe it’s more financially sensible in the larger scheme of things to cover the cost of healthcare for illegal residents, but I haven’t seen any evidence that demonstrates that, and even with such evidence its still politically untenable. My point is that such a scheme is so politically untenable that even existing Western universal healthcare countries do not have such a scheme. It’s far more radical than what is typically advocated in the US.
        6y ago
    - lultimouomo 6y ago
      > families with incomes too high to qualify for Medicaid, but too low to afford private coverage. I guess that it is widespread knowledge that you can be in such a situation, but to read it spelled out on medicaid.gov is really something... At least they're nice enough to let you go without medical assistance, but save your children.
  - DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
    Not specifically; the US is not the only country in the world without UH - and UH is not the same thing as single-payer nor free-at-the-point-of-need. Emphasis on “variety of reasons” - which includes the US - the tragedy is that those “variety of reasons” are the most asinine reasons compared to, say, countries that simply haven’t reached the necessary level of civil stability and infrastructure development to support UH.
- alex_anglin 6y ago
  How does this demonstrate the universal healthcare doesn't work?

jessaustin 6y ago

One supposes Kenya and other, poorer nations in Africa will appreciate this advice, and then they'll snap their fingers and all will be well...

neves 6y ago
I think the parent was talking about the USA.
- refurb 6y ago
  It's actually relatively straightforward to get Medicaid coverage for children in the US. There is a specific program to cover them (and pregnant women). https://www.medicaid.gov/chip/index.html https://www.medicaid.gov/chip/index.html "The Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) is a joint federal and state program that provides health coverage to uninsured children in families with incomes too high to qualify for Medicaid, but too low to afford private coverage."
  - tialaramex 6y ago
    I appreciate that for many Americans this feels like it's enough, or at least almost enough, but it's nowhere close. Dozens (every US state and territory is handled separately) of separate systems in which you can fill out a bunch of paperwork to apply to have insurance for children is nowhere close to the zero friction "free at the point of use" goal of universal healthcare. Some countries with universal healthcare don't do a great job of achieving zero friction, but they're all way ahead of a disjointed paperwork process that only results in getting insurance that ought to have been free for everyone from the outset. And, one of the most obvious problems is: CHIP only covers children you can provide an SSN for. So maybe Steve, aged 4 is covered because you had him in San Antonio but his older sister Esther was born in Mexico and travelled over the border with you. She can't get CHIP because she doesn't have an SSN and powerful people want to make sure it stays that way.
    - tristor 6y ago
      Esther’s situation is problematic, but extending socialized benefits to non-citizens is a nonstarter and isn’t the case in any of the other Western societies that supporters of single-payer universal healthcare would like to model the US system on. I am not going to enumerate all the reasons why it’s a nonstarter, but at least one is that it massively increases the cost of any such social program to a point it becomes both practically and politically untenable. I’ve visited and used healthcare services in many of those other Western countries as a foreigner, and every single time I was required to file paperwork and pay a deposit in cash (or rarely by card) before receiving services. I would not have expected any differently, as I’m not a tax-paying citizen in those countries. On a mostly unrelated note, I write this while currently residing in San Antonio (as used in your example scenario).
      - cheerlessbog 6y ago
        I assume you mean “non legal residents” as typically universal healthcare covers legal residents. Do you have evidence that it makes financial sense to leave unauthorized residents (likely) untreated? One might imagine they’re disproportionately young and healthy and not suffering from terminal cancer if they came here to work in fields. Going to the ER uninsured is very expensive for society.
        tristor 6y ago
        I was legally in every country I’ve been in, including several where I became temporarily resident. In every case as a non-citizen I was obligated to pay and was not covered under the social medicine scheme. I know the rules on non-citizen permanent residents are different in most countries however. I would believe it’s more financially sensible in the larger scheme of things to cover the cost of healthcare for illegal residents, but I haven’t seen any evidence that demonstrates that, and even with such evidence its still politically untenable. My point is that such a scheme is so politically untenable that even existing Western universal healthcare countries do not have such a scheme. It’s far more radical than what is typically advocated in the US.
      - 6y ago
  - lultimouomo 6y ago
    > families with incomes too high to qualify for Medicaid, but too low to afford private coverage. I guess that it is widespread knowledge that you can be in such a situation, but to read it spelled out on medicaid.gov is really something... At least they're nice enough to let you go without medical assistance, but save your children.
- DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
  Not specifically; the US is not the only country in the world without UH - and UH is not the same thing as single-payer nor free-at-the-point-of-need. Emphasis on “variety of reasons” - which includes the US - the tragedy is that those “variety of reasons” are the most asinine reasons compared to, say, countries that simply haven’t reached the necessary level of civil stability and infrastructure development to support UH.
alex_anglin 6y ago
How does this demonstrate the universal healthcare doesn't work?