3 ms·

Well then what's wrong with people simply paying out of pocket for basic services? Insurance would be there to cover the truly catastrophic health issues, but o

Well then what's wrong with people simply paying out of pocket for basic services? Insurance would be there to cover the truly catastrophic health issues, but otherwise we would all pay for the level of basic service (maintenance) we prefer to pay for.

potatolicious 14y ago
We have this - this is what one normally finds in the form of health indemnity. They cover (up to some maximum) only emergency/catastrophic costs, and have no everyday coverage. They are extremely unpopular for many reasons, which center primarily around paying out of pocket for normal services: For the purposes of this argument I'm going to use "health plan" to refer to what most people call "insurance" - to avoid confusing the two concepts. - The out of pocket costs for a no-plan person is extremely inflated. Where your insurance company might pay $60 for a doctor's visit, the cost for someone not on a health plan may be $200-300. This makes the notion of paying out of pocket for routine services unrealistic for the majority of the population. - These out of pocket costs are expensive because the status quo is for everyone to be on an employer-sponsored health plan. Those who can afford to pay, are on a health plan - the bulk of those who aren't on a plan are financially compromised and likely to default on their debts. This encourages a wild inflation of quoted cost to compensate. - This further drives people to health plans. Barring the ultra-rich, no one is able to afford health care at "free market" prices, making health plans the only reasonable route forward. In short, what's wrong with people paying out of pocket for basic services is that "basic services" at market rates will set you back $300 for sore throat.
- lotharbot 14y ago
  I've been without a traditional health plan for quite a while. There's actually been a lot of innovation in this space recently. For example, in some locales you can subscribe to a "direct primary care" practice for a family of four (2 adults, 2 kids) for around $150 per month, and visit your primary care provider as much as you need, paying only for supplies or possibly a token per-visit amount. This, combined with a legitimate "insurance" plan with a high deductible, might set a family back less than half as much as a traditional all-inclusive health plan. (This is what I had in Seattle, with Qliance as my direct primary care provider.) My son recently needed a physical to start school. As a self-pay patient now located in Denver, I called around to independent clinics in my area and was able to get a fairly good price ($110 total out of pocket, paid up front.) My wife was recently able to be treated for an ear infection for around $80. If you're actually paying out of pocket it can be a little bit of work, but there are ways to get your costs down to close to "free market" levels.
- marknutter 14y ago
  I recently had my brakes repaired for around $300. $300 for maintenance on my own body seems pretty fair. And perhaps people shouldn't be visiting the doctor every time they get a sore throat.

potatolicious 14y ago

We have this - this is what one normally finds in the form of health indemnity. They cover (up to some maximum) only emergency/catastrophic costs, and have no everyday coverage. They are extremely unpopular for many reasons, which center primarily around paying out of pocket for normal services: For the purposes of this argument I'm going to use "health plan" to refer to what most people call "insurance" - to avoid confusing the two concepts. - The out of pocket costs for a no-plan person is extremely inflated. Where your insurance company might pay $60 for a doctor's visit, the cost for someone not on a health plan may be $200-300. This makes the notion of paying out of pocket for routine services unrealistic for the majority of the population. - These out of pocket costs are expensive because the status quo is for everyone to be on an employer-sponsored health plan. Those who can afford to pay, are on a health plan - the bulk of those who aren't on a plan are financially compromised and likely to default on their debts. This encourages a wild inflation of quoted cost to compensate. - This further drives people to health plans. Barring the ultra-rich, no one is able to afford health care at "free market" prices, making health plans the only reasonable route forward. In short, what's wrong with people paying out of pocket for basic services is that "basic services" at market rates will set you back $300 for sore throat.

lotharbot 14y ago
I've been without a traditional health plan for quite a while. There's actually been a lot of innovation in this space recently. For example, in some locales you can subscribe to a "direct primary care" practice for a family of four (2 adults, 2 kids) for around $150 per month, and visit your primary care provider as much as you need, paying only for supplies or possibly a token per-visit amount. This, combined with a legitimate "insurance" plan with a high deductible, might set a family back less than half as much as a traditional all-inclusive health plan. (This is what I had in Seattle, with Qliance as my direct primary care provider.) My son recently needed a physical to start school. As a self-pay patient now located in Denver, I called around to independent clinics in my area and was able to get a fairly good price ($110 total out of pocket, paid up front.) My wife was recently able to be treated for an ear infection for around $80. If you're actually paying out of pocket it can be a little bit of work, but there are ways to get your costs down to close to "free market" levels.
marknutter 14y ago
I recently had my brakes repaired for around $300. $300 for maintenance on my own body seems pretty fair. And perhaps people shouldn't be visiting the doctor every time they get a sore throat.