4 ms·

And this, my ladies and gentlemen, is why healthcare shouldn’t be “insured” but a fundamental human right catered for by an essential public utility (universal

And this, my ladies and gentlemen, is why healthcare shouldn’t be “insured” but a fundamental human right catered for by an essential public utility (universal healthcare).

swiley 5y ago
Routine healthcare shouldn't be insured, but dealing with unforeseen health problems should. There's no level of coverage that could possibly considered complete so it should be up to the individual to decide how much resources to dedicate to it. The problem with this approach in the US is: 1) Until very recently there was no law requiting even estimated costs for medicine. Since the insurance company always pays for this there was just about no market pressure to lower costs (in other words: we took a "free market" approach without actually having a market.) 2) Insurance is used to cover routine medical procedures. This is the polar opposite of what insurance should be used for. 3) The US has a fairly week social safety net. Most other countries have fairly extensive social programs but in the US people are supposed go ... somewhere. This is probably the case that you're most upset about.
- mindslight 5y ago
  1) Until very recently there was no law requiting even estimated costs for medicine This is the wrong way to frame it. At the most basic level, forming a contract requires agreeing on consideration. For some reason, medical providers are allowed to create arbitrary post-facto charges and then enforce their baseless fantasies through the legal system, likely due to corrupt state laws. For any meaningful market-based healthcare reform, this and other regulatory capture needs to be addressed.
paulddraper 5y ago
Fundamental human rights are based on billing practices?
- tim333 5y ago
  Uh no. I think they are suggesting a fundamental right to healthcare which is a different thing.

4 ms·

And this, my ladies and gentlemen, is why healthcare shouldn’t be “insured” but a fundamental human right catered for by an essential public utility (universal

by hestefisk 5y ago

And this, my ladies and gentlemen, is why healthcare shouldn’t be “insured” but a fundamental human right catered for by an essential public utility (universal healthcare).

swiley 5y ago
Routine healthcare shouldn't be insured, but dealing with unforeseen health problems should. There's no level of coverage that could possibly considered complete so it should be up to the individual to decide how much resources to dedicate to it. The problem with this approach in the US is: 1) Until very recently there was no law requiting even estimated costs for medicine. Since the insurance company always pays for this there was just about no market pressure to lower costs (in other words: we took a "free market" approach without actually having a market.) 2) Insurance is used to cover routine medical procedures. This is the polar opposite of what insurance should be used for. 3) The US has a fairly week social safety net. Most other countries have fairly extensive social programs but in the US people are supposed go ... somewhere. This is probably the case that you're most upset about.
- mindslight 5y ago
  1) Until very recently there was no law requiting even estimated costs for medicine This is the wrong way to frame it. At the most basic level, forming a contract requires agreeing on consideration. For some reason, medical providers are allowed to create arbitrary post-facto charges and then enforce their baseless fantasies through the legal system, likely due to corrupt state laws. For any meaningful market-based healthcare reform, this and other regulatory capture needs to be addressed.
paulddraper 5y ago
Fundamental human rights are based on billing practices?
- tim333 5y ago
  Uh no. I think they are suggesting a fundamental right to healthcare which is a different thing.