4 ms·

I get the sentiment, but I can say without any hyperbole that would be a death sentence on the majority of people with chronic conditions.

krupan 2y ago
When people say things like this I feel sad that we seem to have no idea what insurance really is, or that people are free to organize help for others and that many many good people would freely choose to do so.
- sympil 2y ago
  … are free to organize help for others.. We have done so in the form of government. The whole promote the general welfare bit. The free rider problem is not an issue with publicly funded healthcare.
  - krupan 2y ago
    Government forcing us all to do something a certain way is not people freely organizing. Sorry to break it to you. Please see my other comment in this thread for more of my thoughts on that.
    - sympil 2y ago
      …people freely organizing… It is to the extent possible for 330 million people. There are no instances in world history in which people freely organizing as you put it adequately solved the issues of hunger, education, healthcare, etc. for civilizations with more than 5 million people. People, in the form of their elected officials, can freely decide to impose a publicly funded solution. You’d be free to refuse care in such a system, or to leave. All societies have rules that some people don’t like.
      - krupan 2y ago
        Thank you for that explanation, Comrade. In all seriousness, if those are the only choices then it's not people freely organizing. And this forced "free" organization is NOT the only way to solve these problems, and in fact it isn't really a solution to these problems at all.
        sympil 2y ago
        Acknowledging what governments do makes me a communist? All societies impose rules on its citizens. Some socieities have imposed a publicly funded healthcare solution. Some of them have done so successfully. Leave the country if you don’t like living somewhere that imposes rules on you.
        krupan 2y ago
        If you can't tell the difference between which kinds of rules governments impose then I'm sorry I can't help you. I'm not going to leave this country because it still grants citizens the most freedom of any country. I'd like for that to continue to be the case.
    - technol0gic 2y ago
      and private industry has a prime directive to attain profit goals at predefined amounts, regardless of who is healthy or sick, so the more expensive of the two will fall by the wayside. what has me pensive is, i think you already know this
      - krupan 2y ago
        "profit goals at predefined amounts" ? What are these pre defined amounts? Who sets the amounts? I'm really not sure you know what you are talking about at all. Private industry has no prime directive. There is no supreme leader telling them what to do. That's kinda the whole point. Some choose to pursue maximum short term profit at the expense of all else, and some choose to give every penny they earn to the poor and needy, with a whole spectrum in between. Most people in our society are good people, unless they are constantly told they are not, constantly told that they should be afraid of everyone else, or are given too much power over others.
- cloverich 2y ago
  It's an obvious outcome though. Cheaper insurance can be had by excluding anyone with a chronic or serious condition. Healthy people will flock to it. Their rates will drop. The rates for the non-healthy will thus go up, and effectively be unaffordable for most; the same reason you cannot get home insurance in a fire prone area. It's not that it is expensive -- you literally cannot get it (unless Government backs it, e.g. same as our current insurance). The destitute in health will indeed get some charity. But unless people willingly donate to the same level they are paying for insurance today, it will be strictly less. Yes, "insurance" as such has lost its meaning. Its healthcare coverage. Everyone knows that, we just keep calling it "insurance".
  - krupan 2y ago
    Insurance is supposed to be for rare and expensive occurances. Fires (in most places), windstorms, car accidents, etc. It's essentially a bank account that a large number of people put money into and only a few people ever withdraw from. So yes, you are correct that it doesn't work to have fire insurance in fire prone areas, or to cover medical care for people that are chronically sick. It's not that insurance companies are evil, it just doesn't fit the insurance model. A different solution is needed. One that we could come up with if we had some freedom to experiment with. Health insurance today is really a collective bargaining organization. You join the UHC club and UHC negotiatates rates with medical providers on club members behalf. Except it doesn't even work very well in that model because it's not run like a club with members having any input really. You also can't easily leave one club if you are unhappy and join another club, and your employer and the government are paying more of the money into the club than you are.
    - cloverich 2y ago
      > A different solution is needed. One that we could come up with if we had some freedom to experiment with. I believe if you propose such a practical experiment HN would be happy to discuss, poke holes, etc. However, most people are fine to look at other countries that have already implemented universal health care well, at a fraction of US prices and say, lets do that. The average American on private insurance already pays more than what such a system would cost. Allowing a private option on top would resolve issues with anyone worried about reduced quality / lack of choice.

krupan 2y ago

When people say things like this I feel sad that we seem to have no idea what insurance really is, or that people are free to organize help for others and that many many good people would freely choose to do so.

sympil 2y ago
… are free to organize help for others.. We have done so in the form of government. The whole promote the general welfare bit. The free rider problem is not an issue with publicly funded healthcare.
- krupan 2y ago
  Government forcing us all to do something a certain way is not people freely organizing. Sorry to break it to you. Please see my other comment in this thread for more of my thoughts on that.
  - sympil 2y ago
    …people freely organizing… It is to the extent possible for 330 million people. There are no instances in world history in which people freely organizing as you put it adequately solved the issues of hunger, education, healthcare, etc. for civilizations with more than 5 million people. People, in the form of their elected officials, can freely decide to impose a publicly funded solution. You’d be free to refuse care in such a system, or to leave. All societies have rules that some people don’t like.
    - krupan 2y ago
      Thank you for that explanation, Comrade. In all seriousness, if those are the only choices then it's not people freely organizing. And this forced "free" organization is NOT the only way to solve these problems, and in fact it isn't really a solution to these problems at all.
      - sympil 2y ago
        Acknowledging what governments do makes me a communist? All societies impose rules on its citizens. Some socieities have imposed a publicly funded healthcare solution. Some of them have done so successfully. Leave the country if you don’t like living somewhere that imposes rules on you.
        krupan 2y ago
        If you can't tell the difference between which kinds of rules governments impose then I'm sorry I can't help you. I'm not going to leave this country because it still grants citizens the most freedom of any country. I'd like for that to continue to be the case.
  - technol0gic 2y ago
    and private industry has a prime directive to attain profit goals at predefined amounts, regardless of who is healthy or sick, so the more expensive of the two will fall by the wayside. what has me pensive is, i think you already know this
    - krupan 2y ago
      "profit goals at predefined amounts" ? What are these pre defined amounts? Who sets the amounts? I'm really not sure you know what you are talking about at all. Private industry has no prime directive. There is no supreme leader telling them what to do. That's kinda the whole point. Some choose to pursue maximum short term profit at the expense of all else, and some choose to give every penny they earn to the poor and needy, with a whole spectrum in between. Most people in our society are good people, unless they are constantly told they are not, constantly told that they should be afraid of everyone else, or are given too much power over others.
cloverich 2y ago
It's an obvious outcome though. Cheaper insurance can be had by excluding anyone with a chronic or serious condition. Healthy people will flock to it. Their rates will drop. The rates for the non-healthy will thus go up, and effectively be unaffordable for most; the same reason you cannot get home insurance in a fire prone area. It's not that it is expensive -- you literally cannot get it (unless Government backs it, e.g. same as our current insurance). The destitute in health will indeed get some charity. But unless people willingly donate to the same level they are paying for insurance today, it will be strictly less. Yes, "insurance" as such has lost its meaning. Its healthcare coverage. Everyone knows that, we just keep calling it "insurance".
- krupan 2y ago
  Insurance is supposed to be for rare and expensive occurances. Fires (in most places), windstorms, car accidents, etc. It's essentially a bank account that a large number of people put money into and only a few people ever withdraw from. So yes, you are correct that it doesn't work to have fire insurance in fire prone areas, or to cover medical care for people that are chronically sick. It's not that insurance companies are evil, it just doesn't fit the insurance model. A different solution is needed. One that we could come up with if we had some freedom to experiment with. Health insurance today is really a collective bargaining organization. You join the UHC club and UHC negotiatates rates with medical providers on club members behalf. Except it doesn't even work very well in that model because it's not run like a club with members having any input really. You also can't easily leave one club if you are unhappy and join another club, and your employer and the government are paying more of the money into the club than you are.
  - cloverich 2y ago
    > A different solution is needed. One that we could come up with if we had some freedom to experiment with. I believe if you propose such a practical experiment HN would be happy to discuss, poke holes, etc. However, most people are fine to look at other countries that have already implemented universal health care well, at a fraction of US prices and say, lets do that. The average American on private insurance already pays more than what such a system would cost. Allowing a private option on top would resolve issues with anyone worried about reduced quality / lack of choice.