4 ms·
> 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 possib
by 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 agoWell, 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.]