4 ms·

Health care in the US isn't bad (mostly). It just isn't better than in countries where there's 100% coverage of the population. And it's many times more expensi

Health care in the US isn't bad (mostly). It just isn't better than in countries where there's 100% coverage of the population. And it's many times more expensive. There's unlikely to be any solution though, barring a massive shift in public opinion. True reform would reduce a bunch of insurance companies to smoking craters and would certainly involve some sort of tax increase, both of which would be regarded by most in government as unacceptable outcomes. As it is, the horrible expenses paid by the sick help to subsidize those who can't pay (who are anyway discouraged from getting regular care as much as possible). Costs are already distributed, just not evenly, because you only pay the horrible prices when you get sick. And most people prefer not to think about it until then.

cloverich 14y ago
> As it is, the horrible expenses paid by the sick help to subsidize those who can't pay (who are anyway discouraged from getting regular care as much as possible). The expenses are covered not just (or mainly) by the sick but by the insured. There's a reason my insurance is nearly $500 a month, though I"ve never been sick or injured and rarely visit a doctor (I've thus contributed probably $50,000 to healthcare without consuming any). Given my general health, young age, and low chance of catastrophic injury, the only explanation is that i'm subsidizing other people's care.
- hcayless 14y ago
  Well, you are subsidizing the insurance industry too :-). There are clearly indirect costs that go into inflating insurance premiums. I find it very hard to understand why it's acceptable to pay in one way (high premiums, catastrophic care bills) but not in another (nationalized health care). I've never heard an argument against it that didn't strike me as pure FUD. [Incidentally, not trolling Republicans here—I'd love to hear a good explanation that goes beyond distaste for anything government-run.]

cloverich 14y ago

> As it is, the horrible expenses paid by the sick help to subsidize those who can't pay (who are anyway discouraged from getting regular care as much as possible). The expenses are covered not just (or mainly) by the sick but by the insured. There's a reason my insurance is nearly $500 a month, though I"ve never been sick or injured and rarely visit a doctor (I've thus contributed probably $50,000 to healthcare without consuming any). Given my general health, young age, and low chance of catastrophic injury, the only explanation is that i'm subsidizing other people's care.

hcayless 14y ago
Well, you are subsidizing the insurance industry too :-). There are clearly indirect costs that go into inflating insurance premiums. I find it very hard to understand why it's acceptable to pay in one way (high premiums, catastrophic care bills) but not in another (nationalized health care). I've never heard an argument against it that didn't strike me as pure FUD. [Incidentally, not trolling Republicans here—I'd love to hear a good explanation that goes beyond distaste for anything government-run.]