7 ms·

> just increase their insurance premiums to reflect the higher risk of being hospitalized if/when they catch it. That's usually not possible with universal hea

by sgift 4y ago

> just increase their insurance premiums to reflect the higher risk of being hospitalized if/when they catch it. That's usually not possible with universal healthcare.

thematrixturtle 4y ago
Singapore has heavily subsidized healthcare, but they've announced that if you're medically eligible for the vaccine, choose not to get it, and end up in the hospital due to COVID, you'll pay the full unsubsidized rates.
- basisword 4y ago
  It doesn't work in a system where nobody pays. e.g. UK
  - tluyben2 4y ago
    In NL a you have healthcare by mandatory insurance (and they cannot refuse you), so I think there is room for a rule like this in NL; I think that’s not the case in the UK or other places like ES and PT.
    - belter 4y ago
      You are opening the door to your insurance require that you become a vegan or increase the premium to unaffordable levels. Then as you accept the principle, you will be mandated to take other vaccines. Your compliance will be verified by a chip. "Imagine the compliance": https://nitter.net/loffredojeremy/status/1527521228688445442 https://nitter.net/loffredojeremy/status/1527521228688445442
      - tluyben2 4y ago
        It’s not a good plan, but neither did I think the current system in NL is a good plan; I did not vote for the people who got NL healthcare to this point.
  - hdjjhhvvhga 4y ago
    "Nobody pays" is an understatement; everybody who is working in the UK or is officially selling/buying[0] a product or service is paying for it. [0] While technically it's the company who pays VAT to the HMRC, it is the end customer who actually spends that money, so it's just semantics.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
BiteCode_dev 4y ago
You have the same issue with smokers and cancer, obese people and heart attack, drunk/tired/hurried drivers and accidents, drug users and depression, sugar consummers and diabetes, extreme sport hobbyists and traumas, etc. At some point, half of the population fall under some risk factor that they could avoid, but instead, make society pay for it. That's the game of universal healthcare. As a vaccinated French citizen, I'm ok with it. The pros beat the cons.
- kkfx 4y ago
  Interesting point: how can you say "The pros beat the cons"? So far, and more important from the history (one scandal per WHO pandemic declaration, same plot before and ongoing) we have see only evidence of the very contrary: 2021 total mortality was far higher than 2020 one, 2020 with covid, without "vaccines", 2021 with "vaccines". What evidence you know of the contrary? The À la une of some journal stating that or something more solid? Beside that, speaking about France did you read the official report https://www.atih.sante.fr/sites/default/files/public/content/4144/aah_2020_analyse_covid.pdf https://www.atih.sante.fr/sites/default/files/public/content... ? Did you read constants articles about medical deserts due to neoliberals reforms ? Long story short: try to compare USA health costs (the highest in the western world) with the lowest mean quality with classic EU PUBLIC and UNIVERSAL health systems the cheapest and the best in mean quality. Than try to draw where the costs came from and more important: from witch pocked money depart to end up in witch other pockets.
- Beltalowda 4y ago
  In the specific case of smokers, it doesn't actually increase health costs. Smokers die younger and often have a relatively short illness before they die. Compare this to someone who lives 95 and requires care in a care-home it's "cheap". You also save on things like pension costs because you don't pay them to dead folk, and income from taxes. I'm not entirely sure about the numbers on things like obesity, drug use, etc. off-hand. I agree with you as a matter of principle, so not that it really matters, but people sometimes say "smokers should pay the cost they inflict on society themselves!" and turns out they're not actually inflicting the huge costs people imagine they do.
- 4y ago

by sgift 4y ago

> just increase their insurance premiums to reflect the higher risk of being hospitalized if/when they catch it. That's usually not possible with universal healthcare.

thematrixturtle 4y ago

Singapore has heavily subsidized healthcare, but they've announced that if you're medically eligible for the vaccine, choose not to get it, and end up in the hospital due to COVID, you'll pay the full unsubsidized rates.

basisword 4y ago
It doesn't work in a system where nobody pays. e.g. UK
- tluyben2 4y ago
  In NL a you have healthcare by mandatory insurance (and they cannot refuse you), so I think there is room for a rule like this in NL; I think that’s not the case in the UK or other places like ES and PT.
  - belter 4y ago
    You are opening the door to your insurance require that you become a vegan or increase the premium to unaffordable levels. Then as you accept the principle, you will be mandated to take other vaccines. Your compliance will be verified by a chip. "Imagine the compliance": https://nitter.net/loffredojeremy/status/1527521228688445442 https://nitter.net/loffredojeremy/status/1527521228688445442
    - tluyben2 4y ago
      It’s not a good plan, but neither did I think the current system in NL is a good plan; I did not vote for the people who got NL healthcare to this point.
- hdjjhhvvhga 4y ago
  "Nobody pays" is an understatement; everybody who is working in the UK or is officially selling/buying[0] a product or service is paying for it. [0] While technically it's the company who pays VAT to the HMRC, it is the end customer who actually spends that money, so it's just semantics.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

BiteCode_dev 4y ago

You have the same issue with smokers and cancer, obese people and heart attack, drunk/tired/hurried drivers and accidents, drug users and depression, sugar consummers and diabetes, extreme sport hobbyists and traumas, etc. At some point, half of the population fall under some risk factor that they could avoid, but instead, make society pay for it. That's the game of universal healthcare. As a vaccinated French citizen, I'm ok with it. The pros beat the cons.

kkfx 4y ago
Interesting point: how can you say "The pros beat the cons"? So far, and more important from the history (one scandal per WHO pandemic declaration, same plot before and ongoing) we have see only evidence of the very contrary: 2021 total mortality was far higher than 2020 one, 2020 with covid, without "vaccines", 2021 with "vaccines". What evidence you know of the contrary? The À la une of some journal stating that or something more solid? Beside that, speaking about France did you read the official report https://www.atih.sante.fr/sites/default/files/public/content/4144/aah_2020_analyse_covid.pdf https://www.atih.sante.fr/sites/default/files/public/content... ? Did you read constants articles about medical deserts due to neoliberals reforms ? Long story short: try to compare USA health costs (the highest in the western world) with the lowest mean quality with classic EU PUBLIC and UNIVERSAL health systems the cheapest and the best in mean quality. Than try to draw where the costs came from and more important: from witch pocked money depart to end up in witch other pockets.
Beltalowda 4y ago
In the specific case of smokers, it doesn't actually increase health costs. Smokers die younger and often have a relatively short illness before they die. Compare this to someone who lives 95 and requires care in a care-home it's "cheap". You also save on things like pension costs because you don't pay them to dead folk, and income from taxes. I'm not entirely sure about the numbers on things like obesity, drug use, etc. off-hand. I agree with you as a matter of principle, so not that it really matters, but people sometimes say "smokers should pay the cost they inflict on society themselves!" and turns out they're not actually inflicting the huge costs people imagine they do.
4y ago