3 ms·
Technically, our taxes are used for all kinds of stuff we don't directly benefit from and you can argue that the insurance premiums we pay are paying for someon
by rawtxapp 5y ago
Technically, our taxes are used for all kinds of stuff we don't directly benefit from and you can argue that the insurance premiums we pay are paying for someone else's treatment.
I think another argument is that it'll be less effective (ex: longer wait times, etc) and that people will abuse it, ex: in Canada, I used to see people show up to ER because they were sneezing and I've seen people wait forever to get a doctor, etc, you're much less likely to do that if it costs you something.
- refurb 5y agoThis is the Singapore approach to everything the govt offers. Unless citizens have “skin in the game” over utilization happens. So even if you’re destitute, the govt will ask “well, what can you pay?” and if it’s $20/month for rent, we’ll, your rent is $20. Same with healthcare. Destitute? Ok, the gov’t will cover 99% of the cost, but we need you to pay $20. Private insurance had plans that paid 100% of costs and the govt created a regulation banning it. The end user must pay something. No saying it’s the right approach or not, but it’s an interesting one.
- geoduck14 5y agoThere have been plenty of studies supporting this. Thanks for mentioning it
- hef19898 5y agoGermany tried to solve this with a 10 bucks fee for seeing a doctor per mnth, unless one doctor sent you to another one. It didn't have much of an impact, only increased beuracracy at the doctors practices expense and was abolished after some time.