3 ms·

So.. your argument is that because insurance companies can profit, it's not so bad? "Well, your legacy might be financial ruin for your children, or an early de

So.. your argument is that because insurance companies can profit, it's not so bad? "Well, your legacy might be financial ruin for your children, or an early death to avoid that, but since most people die before they realize they're severely ill, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I'm not arguing probabilities here, I'm arguing deductive reasoning. You are a decaying meatsack. So am I. At some point something very bad will happen to that decaying meatsack. Such an event will be absurdly expensive to treat. Since I think we'd all agree that for pretty much anyone it makes sense to have health insurance, the obvious next step is: just give everyone health insurance and take it out of tax, and simplify these things 1000 fold. (Not to mention that a single payer would have WAY more leverage, and thusly could negotiate way lower prices. And that's not a hypothetical.. that's how it works in pretty much every country that isn't the US).

na85 13y ago
>So.. your argument is that because insurance companies can profit, it's not so bad? His/her argument is, AFAICT: "Because insurance companies can profit, that shows that less than a majority of people die after a prolonged, expensive illness. Therefore the earlier statement that "it is 100% certain you will have a long, expensive illness at some point in life" is not true. Plenty of people die of sudden stroke or heart attack in their 70s after a relatively healthy life up to that point.
tripzilch 13y ago
But the problem is also that healthcare in the US is just absurdly expensive, insurance or not. Sure, many EU countries have universal health insurance, but if you look behind those, costs (paid by the insurance or not) are quite a bit lower than the US. They're still quite hefty and you do want to be insured for them, but why is healthcare in the US so expensive in the first place?
- specialist 13y ago
  1/3rd of US healthcare costs is administrative. Single payer (Medicare for all) fixes that. The lowest hanging fruit, biggest bang for the buck, best ROI, the most logical common sense way to control US healthcare costs is to switch to single payer with universal coverage. Sure, do all the other kabuki, like quality of care, healthcare insurance exchanges, price transparency, generics, whatever. Because better is better. But know that you're weeding the flower beds while the house is burning down.

na85 13y ago

>So.. your argument is that because insurance companies can profit, it's not so bad? His/her argument is, AFAICT: "Because insurance companies can profit, that shows that less than a majority of people die after a prolonged, expensive illness. Therefore the earlier statement that "it is 100% certain you will have a long, expensive illness at some point in life" is not true. Plenty of people die of sudden stroke or heart attack in their 70s after a relatively healthy life up to that point.

tripzilch 13y ago

But the problem is also that healthcare in the US is just absurdly expensive, insurance or not. Sure, many EU countries have universal health insurance, but if you look behind those, costs (paid by the insurance or not) are quite a bit lower than the US. They're still quite hefty and you do want to be insured for them, but why is healthcare in the US so expensive in the first place?

specialist 13y ago
1/3rd of US healthcare costs is administrative. Single payer (Medicare for all) fixes that. The lowest hanging fruit, biggest bang for the buck, best ROI, the most logical common sense way to control US healthcare costs is to switch to single payer with universal coverage. Sure, do all the other kabuki, like quality of care, healthcare insurance exchanges, price transparency, generics, whatever. Because better is better. But know that you're weeding the flower beds while the house is burning down.