4 ms·

fyi, the lower classes in the US pay nothing for health care, typically.

throwaway894345 5y ago
I think that's only true for the very poorest Americans and I don't think they enjoy the same quality of healthcare that the professional class enjoys. In general, Medicare seems to be really complicated and it varies tremendously by state, so it's hard to generalize about the kind of healthcare poorer people receive.
- refurb 5y ago
  It’s not Medicare it’s Medicaid and the qualification can be up to 400% of the poverty line and the coverage tends to be quite good with minimal ($5) out of pocket costs. In some areas it can be harder to find a family doctor because Medicaid pays them so little for a visit, but drug coverage, for example is comparable to private plans (with way less out of pocket). And now with Obamacare exchanges, low incomes folks can qualify for substantial premium subsidies. Deductibles and out of pocket limits can still be significant, but one could consider it catastrophic coverage.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    > It’s not Medicare it’s Medicaid Of course. I wasn't thinking properly.
  - Ericson2314 5y ago
    At least in New York, medicaid is still annoying in that it's hard to schedule appointments quickly, and many procedures require submitting forms to authorize (more waiting). Basically the general balkanized-bureaucratic chaos that affects all US healthcare is not ameliorated by medicaid being the single payer. Something simplified and streamlined like the UK NHS sounds much better.
    - throwaway894345 5y ago
      > Something simplified and streamlined like the UK NHS sounds much better. I have lots of friends in the UK including some who work for the NHS and none of them characterize it as “streamlined” or “simplified”. “Bottomless money put” has come up a few times. I’m sharing this out of amusement more than anything; I fully support single payer and I suspect even the UK’s NHS is better than America’s system in general.

I think that's only true for the very poorest Americans and I don't think they enjoy the same quality of healthcare that the professional class enjoys. In general, Medicare seems to be really complicated and it varies tremendously by state, so it's hard to generalize about the kind of healthcare poorer people receive.

refurb 5y ago
It’s not Medicare it’s Medicaid and the qualification can be up to 400% of the poverty line and the coverage tends to be quite good with minimal ($5) out of pocket costs. In some areas it can be harder to find a family doctor because Medicaid pays them so little for a visit, but drug coverage, for example is comparable to private plans (with way less out of pocket). And now with Obamacare exchanges, low incomes folks can qualify for substantial premium subsidies. Deductibles and out of pocket limits can still be significant, but one could consider it catastrophic coverage.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  > It’s not Medicare it’s Medicaid Of course. I wasn't thinking properly.
- Ericson2314 5y ago
  At least in New York, medicaid is still annoying in that it's hard to schedule appointments quickly, and many procedures require submitting forms to authorize (more waiting). Basically the general balkanized-bureaucratic chaos that affects all US healthcare is not ameliorated by medicaid being the single payer. Something simplified and streamlined like the UK NHS sounds much better.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    > Something simplified and streamlined like the UK NHS sounds much better. I have lots of friends in the UK including some who work for the NHS and none of them characterize it as “streamlined” or “simplified”. “Bottomless money put” has come up a few times. I’m sharing this out of amusement more than anything; I fully support single payer and I suspect even the UK’s NHS is better than America’s system in general.