4 ms·

This country is the land of contradictions (and I'm saying this as a resident). More than half of the Americans are not happy with the state of the healthcare,

by yawz 6y ago

This country is the land of contradictions (and I'm saying this as a resident). More than half of the Americans are not happy with the state of the healthcare, but more than half of the Americans are not happy to contribute to a better healthcare system. Go figure!

cyberlurker 6y ago
If you are privileged with a good job and good coverage, it’s far better to be in the system we have now. Your chances of incurring huge costs are relatively low and you’re saving tens of thousands of dollars by not paying to benefit others. Also if you need to get a specific treatment you don’t need to go through a government bureaucracy, you just pay for the treatment or insurance might cover part of it. Of course there are significant downsides if you aren’t privileged or if you care about other people. If you have a kid that is born with diabetes for example it can be a huge unnecessary cost, but that’s probably due to drug pricing in America which is a whole other topic. My point is it isn’t fair to say that the current system is universally bad for everyone. But I personally think we would all be better off as a society if everyone had access to good medical care without the risk of financial ruin.
- matthewmacleod 6y ago
  Your chances of incurring huge costs are relatively low and you’re saving tens of thousands of dollars by not paying to benefit others. Is this actually true though? It seems that the chance of encountering huge expenses are non-negligible, and that you wouldn’t actually save any appreciable amount of money. Also if you need to get a specific treatment you don’t need to go through a government bureaucracy, you just pay for the treatment or insurance might cover part of it. Using the UK as an example, obtaining necessary treatment involves no “government bureaucracy”. It just involves that treatment being deemed medically necessary and then provided. No messing around with insurance and hospital billing departments. Of course, you are still free to pay private providers for services, or indeed to take out private medical insurance.

by yawz 6y ago

cyberlurker 6y ago

If you are privileged with a good job and good coverage, it’s far better to be in the system we have now. Your chances of incurring huge costs are relatively low and you’re saving tens of thousands of dollars by not paying to benefit others. Also if you need to get a specific treatment you don’t need to go through a government bureaucracy, you just pay for the treatment or insurance might cover part of it. Of course there are significant downsides if you aren’t privileged or if you care about other people. If you have a kid that is born with diabetes for example it can be a huge unnecessary cost, but that’s probably due to drug pricing in America which is a whole other topic. My point is it isn’t fair to say that the current system is universally bad for everyone. But I personally think we would all be better off as a society if everyone had access to good medical care without the risk of financial ruin.

matthewmacleod 6y ago
Your chances of incurring huge costs are relatively low and you’re saving tens of thousands of dollars by not paying to benefit others. Is this actually true though? It seems that the chance of encountering huge expenses are non-negligible, and that you wouldn’t actually save any appreciable amount of money. Also if you need to get a specific treatment you don’t need to go through a government bureaucracy, you just pay for the treatment or insurance might cover part of it. Using the UK as an example, obtaining necessary treatment involves no “government bureaucracy”. It just involves that treatment being deemed medically necessary and then provided. No messing around with insurance and hospital billing departments. Of course, you are still free to pay private providers for services, or indeed to take out private medical insurance.