5 ms·

Very few medical expenses are related to life and death scenarios, so I think you're being a bit dramatic. When it comes to basic care, there's absolutely no re

Very few medical expenses are related to life and death scenarios, so I think you're being a bit dramatic. When it comes to basic care, there's absolutely no reason why a capitalist approach wouldn't work, and work well. And insurance was supposed to be the way to protect against catastrophic life and death scenarios but it has become synonymous with basic health coverage.

skore 14y ago
True, but even if they're not life and death - the implication is that you don't cut costs on health care, because somewhere down the line, you might regret it. Also, of course, a lot of the things that may be minor in comparison to true life-and-death scenarios have very real consequences concerning the ability to take part it everyday life or being able to work. Having two fingers cut off might not kill me, but I'm quite sure how I would react - even if somebody offered me a hefty cost to reattach them, I'd choose that over spending the rest of my entire life with only eight fingers.
- marknutter 14y ago
  Well you, as the consumer, have to decide what each service provided is worth. I would pay handsomely to have my fingers re-attached, but if I was on a tight budget I might think twice before going into the doctor for every sore throat (I do that now anyways despite having good coverage). It's up to the individual to decide how much care they want or require and are willing to pay for.
  - skore 14y ago
    I like the thought that was the other reply to your initial comment: But what if that sore throat isn't just a sore throat, but something that will either get very expensive to fix, or kill you outright, the longer you wait? There are plenty of stories around where people thought they were just putting on weight, had some minor pain and it turns out - yup, giant tumor. Universal health care that is either free or affordable without ruining your finances is absolutely possible today. Defending it behind some thin veil of "personal liberty" and the like is cute, but doesn't map to reality.
    - marknutter 14y ago
      Sure a sore throat could be a sign of something worse. But most of the time, it is not. Running to the doctor every time you feel a little off is not practical, and it's expensive because doctors are relatively scarce. In systems where healthcare is "free", doctors give patients a couple of their time at most and are barely keeping up with the flow of patients. Nothing is free.
      - skore 14y ago
        Doctors are not the ones getting filthy rich of this. At least not most of them. The money is sucked out of the system somewhere else (making it unstable for everybody involved - even doctors). But that's besides the point anyways - the fact that people make health decisions based on their economic situation is fundamentally wrong. Also - I live in Germany and even if it's N=1, I have yet to see the doom and gloom that I always hear is supposed to be my reality.
        marknutter 14y ago
        > the fact that people make health decisions based on their economic situation is fundamentally wrong. People make all sorts of major decisions based on their economic situation, including what type of food to eat, where to live, and how much education to invest in. It's not fundamentally wrong, it's how the world works. It's up to individuals to determine what amount and type of health care, shelter, education, and food they need. Not some bureaucrat. > I have yet to see the doom and gloom that I always hear is supposed to be my reality I have yet to see it in my country (USA) either, but then again we are but two data points, aren't we?
king_jester 14y ago
> When it comes to basic care, there's absolutely no reason why a capitalist approach wouldn't work, and work well. I disagree completely. Providing basic care as early as possible to people is the best way to catch problems earlier and reduce overall cost of treatment. Anything that gets in the way of a person seeking basic care, such as payment or wrangling with insurance, means that some people will choose not to seek or will delay seeking basic care. Universal health care options that do not require individuals to pay at time of service are far better for removing barriers to accessing basic care.
- astrodust 14y ago
  This is the problem. Preventative medicine is the most cost-effective, which from a profit perspective is the worst possible thing. If you want your for-profit hospital's revenues to go up, what you need is lots of critically ill patients.
  - veemjeem 14y ago
    Don't you have that the other way around? If you want profit, you'd want a bunch of healthy people paying you premiums. Critically ill patients are expensive, and if they die, they won't be paying premiums anymore. Auto insurance companies want safe drivers who will never ding their car and continue paying a low but steady premium, not reckless drivers who wreck their car every month.
    - astrodust 14y ago
      From an insurance company perspective, preventative care might make sense, but if premiums were lower as a result, it might be counter-productive. I'm sure there's a Nash Equilibrium here where people need to be "optimally sick" and this is a point some distance from "perfectly healthy".

skore 14y ago

True, but even if they're not life and death - the implication is that you don't cut costs on health care, because somewhere down the line, you might regret it. Also, of course, a lot of the things that may be minor in comparison to true life-and-death scenarios have very real consequences concerning the ability to take part it everyday life or being able to work. Having two fingers cut off might not kill me, but I'm quite sure how I would react - even if somebody offered me a hefty cost to reattach them, I'd choose that over spending the rest of my entire life with only eight fingers.

marknutter 14y ago
Well you, as the consumer, have to decide what each service provided is worth. I would pay handsomely to have my fingers re-attached, but if I was on a tight budget I might think twice before going into the doctor for every sore throat (I do that now anyways despite having good coverage). It's up to the individual to decide how much care they want or require and are willing to pay for.
- skore 14y ago
  I like the thought that was the other reply to your initial comment: But what if that sore throat isn't just a sore throat, but something that will either get very expensive to fix, or kill you outright, the longer you wait? There are plenty of stories around where people thought they were just putting on weight, had some minor pain and it turns out - yup, giant tumor. Universal health care that is either free or affordable without ruining your finances is absolutely possible today. Defending it behind some thin veil of "personal liberty" and the like is cute, but doesn't map to reality.
  - marknutter 14y ago
    Sure a sore throat could be a sign of something worse. But most of the time, it is not. Running to the doctor every time you feel a little off is not practical, and it's expensive because doctors are relatively scarce. In systems where healthcare is "free", doctors give patients a couple of their time at most and are barely keeping up with the flow of patients. Nothing is free.
    - skore 14y ago
      Doctors are not the ones getting filthy rich of this. At least not most of them. The money is sucked out of the system somewhere else (making it unstable for everybody involved - even doctors). But that's besides the point anyways - the fact that people make health decisions based on their economic situation is fundamentally wrong. Also - I live in Germany and even if it's N=1, I have yet to see the doom and gloom that I always hear is supposed to be my reality.
      - marknutter 14y ago
        > the fact that people make health decisions based on their economic situation is fundamentally wrong. People make all sorts of major decisions based on their economic situation, including what type of food to eat, where to live, and how much education to invest in. It's not fundamentally wrong, it's how the world works. It's up to individuals to determine what amount and type of health care, shelter, education, and food they need. Not some bureaucrat. > I have yet to see the doom and gloom that I always hear is supposed to be my reality I have yet to see it in my country (USA) either, but then again we are but two data points, aren't we?

king_jester 14y ago

> When it comes to basic care, there's absolutely no reason why a capitalist approach wouldn't work, and work well. I disagree completely. Providing basic care as early as possible to people is the best way to catch problems earlier and reduce overall cost of treatment. Anything that gets in the way of a person seeking basic care, such as payment or wrangling with insurance, means that some people will choose not to seek or will delay seeking basic care. Universal health care options that do not require individuals to pay at time of service are far better for removing barriers to accessing basic care.

astrodust 14y ago
This is the problem. Preventative medicine is the most cost-effective, which from a profit perspective is the worst possible thing. If you want your for-profit hospital's revenues to go up, what you need is lots of critically ill patients.
- veemjeem 14y ago
  Don't you have that the other way around? If you want profit, you'd want a bunch of healthy people paying you premiums. Critically ill patients are expensive, and if they die, they won't be paying premiums anymore. Auto insurance companies want safe drivers who will never ding their car and continue paying a low but steady premium, not reckless drivers who wreck their car every month.
  - astrodust 14y ago
    From an insurance company perspective, preventative care might make sense, but if premiums were lower as a result, it might be counter-productive. I'm sure there's a Nash Equilibrium here where people need to be "optimally sick" and this is a point some distance from "perfectly healthy".