5 ms·

>You keep saying killed, but there is a difference between letting people die and killing them. Using dubious legalese to deny a life saving claim that happens

>You keep saying killed, but there is a difference between letting people die and killing them. Using dubious legalese to deny a life saving claim that happens to cost say $200,000 that you took premiums for is pretty close. If you pay out of pocket, it might save your life, but you're bankrupt, your children get no inheritance, and you probably lose your house. That's a pretty insidious act for profit IMO. >Voters are widely split on healthcare reform and have no consensus beyond the fact that they want it. I want healthcare reform too, but probably dont agree with you on what that means. I don't that that justifies a consequentialist claim that the other is a killer, let alone reprisal. I think the easiest step would be to drop the Medicaid age from 65 to 60. Drop it 5 years every 5 years or so. The lower it goes, the cheaper that bracket will be. I don't know why any politician hasn't suggested this, but I can guess.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
I dont want state funded single player Medicaid for all, and would vote against it. I think my united healthcare plan is better (somewhat ironically). Instead, I think medicaid should be offered, at cost, as a non-profit public option to all ages. This was discussed briefly during the Obama healthcare debates, but broadly rejected by left who wanted to eliminate private options. We got compulsory private healthcare instead, but I think it is still the best option. Give everyone a non-profit option with a national pool size.
- kerkeslager 2y ago
  > This was discussed briefly during the Obama healthcare debates, but broadly rejected by left who wanted to eliminate private options. As someone who voluteered in this field during that time, this is just a repetition of right wing propaganda. There was no serious movement to eliminate private options. Every country with a single-payer system that I'm aware of has private options as well, they just aren't popular because they aren't good or necessary. Right wing extremists want to present this as eliminating options, but in reality, it's just people not choosing private options when they have other options, because private options suck. The real reason the left rejected a the "compromise" of non-profit options is that it still requires people who don't have money to pay for insurance. Simply slapping a non-profit label on an insurance company doesn't fix anything. Note that non-profit health insurance companies exist already, and have solved exactly zero of America's health insurance problems.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    Single payer literally meant that all citizens are subscribed to the same government operated health insurance. If the entire "single payer" program was completely optional and offered at cost, they totally missed the messaging on that one, because I was paying attention and that wasnt my take away.
    - kerkeslager 2y ago
      > Single payer literally meant that all citizens are subscribed to the same government operated health insurance. Correct, but that's a pretty big change from the propaganda you repeated in your previous comment. What you said was, "This was discussed briefly during the Obama healthcare debates, but broadly rejected by left who wanted to eliminate private options." In another now-deleted comment, you also said, "the left was too fixated On preventing people from buying better care". Nothing about having single payer healthcare prevents people from also purchasing private healthcare. Single payer does not require the elimination of private options--when you said that was what the left wanted, you were repeating a lie. People can and do purchase private healthcare in countries with single-payer systems--it's just not common because generally the private healthcare options aren't worth it. > If the entire "single payer" program was completely optional and offered at cost, they totally missed the messaging on that one, because I was paying attention and that wasnt my take away. Single-payer is optional in the same sense that current subsidies to insurance companies are optional, it just costs less and results in less death and human suffering. Your insistence that it has to be "offered at cost" is basically an insistence that people who can't afford that cost but need life saving care can just die. So no, it wasn't "offered at cost"--that's the entire point. I want Americans to be able to receive life-saving medical care when they need it, even if they are poor. That's just basic empathy for our fellow humans.
      - Clubber 2y ago
        In all fairness, Bernie Sanders did want to eliminate private insurance under his medicare for all proposal. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/23/health/private-health-insurance-medicare-for-all-bernie-sanders.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/23/health/private-health-ins... Warren and DeBlasio also signaled they would abolish private insurance. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaTecufx8Sk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaTecufx8Sk
selimthegrim 2y ago
You can save your house in a medical bankruptcy.
- howard941 2y ago
  There's nothing in the Bankruptcy Code that treats medical debt differently from other unsecured debt. EDIT: I should clarify that it is nuanced. Medical debt is unlikely to draw unwanted scrutiny from the US Trustee/BR Administrator and of course it doesn't leave the debtor with any assets arising from the debt. Regarding house loss that is far more dependent upon the state you're in than the debt you have. For ex., homestead exemptions will protect the home from most unsecured debt. Further nuance is beyond HN's scope.
- Clubber 2y ago
  Depends on the state. Even if they can't take it directly, you still have to pay the mortgage, the property tax, the insurance, all the maintenance and upkeep with a new $200,000 bill and probably not having worked for a few months for recovery. I'm not sure how sustainable that is for regular people.
jmyeet 2y ago
Fun fact: the ACA originally had an opt-in to Medicare that you could pay for from age 55 but it was removed at the behest of then Senator Joe Liebermann from Connecticut. Liebermann has taken millions in contributions from insurance companies over the years and Connecticut is the home of Aetna IIRC. Another fun fact: unexpected medical debt was the number one cause of bankruptcy in Australia prior to the introduction of Medicare in the 1980s.

s1artibartfast 2y ago

I dont want state funded single player Medicaid for all, and would vote against it. I think my united healthcare plan is better (somewhat ironically). Instead, I think medicaid should be offered, at cost, as a non-profit public option to all ages. This was discussed briefly during the Obama healthcare debates, but broadly rejected by left who wanted to eliminate private options. We got compulsory private healthcare instead, but I think it is still the best option. Give everyone a non-profit option with a national pool size.

kerkeslager 2y ago
> This was discussed briefly during the Obama healthcare debates, but broadly rejected by left who wanted to eliminate private options. As someone who voluteered in this field during that time, this is just a repetition of right wing propaganda. There was no serious movement to eliminate private options. Every country with a single-payer system that I'm aware of has private options as well, they just aren't popular because they aren't good or necessary. Right wing extremists want to present this as eliminating options, but in reality, it's just people not choosing private options when they have other options, because private options suck. The real reason the left rejected a the "compromise" of non-profit options is that it still requires people who don't have money to pay for insurance. Simply slapping a non-profit label on an insurance company doesn't fix anything. Note that non-profit health insurance companies exist already, and have solved exactly zero of America's health insurance problems.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  Single payer literally meant that all citizens are subscribed to the same government operated health insurance. If the entire "single payer" program was completely optional and offered at cost, they totally missed the messaging on that one, because I was paying attention and that wasnt my take away.
  - kerkeslager 2y ago
    > Single payer literally meant that all citizens are subscribed to the same government operated health insurance. Correct, but that's a pretty big change from the propaganda you repeated in your previous comment. What you said was, "This was discussed briefly during the Obama healthcare debates, but broadly rejected by left who wanted to eliminate private options." In another now-deleted comment, you also said, "the left was too fixated On preventing people from buying better care". Nothing about having single payer healthcare prevents people from also purchasing private healthcare. Single payer does not require the elimination of private options--when you said that was what the left wanted, you were repeating a lie. People can and do purchase private healthcare in countries with single-payer systems--it's just not common because generally the private healthcare options aren't worth it. > If the entire "single payer" program was completely optional and offered at cost, they totally missed the messaging on that one, because I was paying attention and that wasnt my take away. Single-payer is optional in the same sense that current subsidies to insurance companies are optional, it just costs less and results in less death and human suffering. Your insistence that it has to be "offered at cost" is basically an insistence that people who can't afford that cost but need life saving care can just die. So no, it wasn't "offered at cost"--that's the entire point. I want Americans to be able to receive life-saving medical care when they need it, even if they are poor. That's just basic empathy for our fellow humans.
    - Clubber 2y ago
      In all fairness, Bernie Sanders did want to eliminate private insurance under his medicare for all proposal. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/23/health/private-health-insurance-medicare-for-all-bernie-sanders.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/23/health/private-health-ins... Warren and DeBlasio also signaled they would abolish private insurance. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaTecufx8Sk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaTecufx8Sk

selimthegrim 2y ago

You can save your house in a medical bankruptcy.

howard941 2y ago
There's nothing in the Bankruptcy Code that treats medical debt differently from other unsecured debt. EDIT: I should clarify that it is nuanced. Medical debt is unlikely to draw unwanted scrutiny from the US Trustee/BR Administrator and of course it doesn't leave the debtor with any assets arising from the debt. Regarding house loss that is far more dependent upon the state you're in than the debt you have. For ex., homestead exemptions will protect the home from most unsecured debt. Further nuance is beyond HN's scope.
Clubber 2y ago
Depends on the state. Even if they can't take it directly, you still have to pay the mortgage, the property tax, the insurance, all the maintenance and upkeep with a new $200,000 bill and probably not having worked for a few months for recovery. I'm not sure how sustainable that is for regular people.

jmyeet 2y ago

Fun fact: the ACA originally had an opt-in to Medicare that you could pay for from age 55 but it was removed at the behest of then Senator Joe Liebermann from Connecticut. Liebermann has taken millions in contributions from insurance companies over the years and Connecticut is the home of Aetna IIRC. Another fun fact: unexpected medical debt was the number one cause of bankruptcy in Australia prior to the introduction of Medicare in the 1980s.