3 ms·

It is, however, more than $0 (and presumably somewhat galling when you are already paying for health insurance.)

jff 12y ago
Lots of insurance has a deductible. Doesn't stop it from being galling... I've made two trips to urgent care this year and just hit my deductible, but those will probably be the only healthcare costs I incur this year meaning United collects yet another year of my premiums in return for nothing.
- happyscrappy 12y ago
  >meaning United collects yet another year of my premiums in return for nothing. Insurance doesn't work if you only pay premiums when you are sick.
  - toomuchtodo 12y ago
    Nor does it work if it doesn't pay out when you are sick.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      It certainly works, in that case, for the shareholders of the insurance company.
- tormeh 12y ago
  >Lots of insurance has a deductible Aw yiss! Bureaucracy is so much better when it's private bureaucracy! Nothing against you, mind, it's just that I hate that kind of stuff.
sp332 12y ago
Is it more than nothing, where nothing == taxes? I'm guessing that the amount of your annual taxes that goes toward health care is > ($300 * chance of you incurring $300 in health care costs).
- throwaway283719 12y ago
  Why guess, when you could get some data? In the UK, the per-capita spend on healthcare is $3480, of which $2919 is paid by the government (and so raised via taxes) and $561 is private (via health insurance or direct payment). In the US, the per-capita spend is $8362, of which $4437 is paid by the government (via taxes) and $3925 is private (via health insurance). This is only a cursory glance, but it does look a bit like nationalized healthcare results in lower private spending and lower government spending (the extra spend in the US presumably goes into the pockets of doctors, pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies). Data sourced from the World Health Organization, via The Guardian[0] [0] http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jun/30/healthcare-spending-world-country http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jun/30/healthc...
  - sp332 12y ago
    I wasn't really defending the US system in general, but I don't think nationalizing healthcare in the USA will lower taxes. The inefficiencies aren't inherent in privatized health care, they are a result of a corrupt system. The corruption isn't going to change if we give the government more control over the system.
    - robotresearcher 12y ago
      Why not? Cutting the insurance companies completely out of the picture changes almost everything.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > The inefficiencies aren't inherent in privatized health care No, but lots of them are inherent in having a nest of overlapping private and public health insurers (regular, workers compensation, and others) each of whom spend considerable resources making sure that they don't pay for something a different insurer (public or private) could instead be compelled to pay for. > they are a result of a corrupt system. Believing that the excess costs in the US system are a result of "corruption" rather than the structural inefficiencies of the architecture of the system requires believing that Americans are unusually, among citizens of developed countries, corrupt. This is not utterly implausible, but it is a claim that requires some support.
baddox 12y ago
It's also more than -$300, and it would certainly be nice if the doctor paid you to use his or her services.

jff 12y ago

Lots of insurance has a deductible. Doesn't stop it from being galling... I've made two trips to urgent care this year and just hit my deductible, but those will probably be the only healthcare costs I incur this year meaning United collects yet another year of my premiums in return for nothing.

happyscrappy 12y ago
>meaning United collects yet another year of my premiums in return for nothing. Insurance doesn't work if you only pay premiums when you are sick.
- toomuchtodo 12y ago
  Nor does it work if it doesn't pay out when you are sick.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    It certainly works, in that case, for the shareholders of the insurance company.
tormeh 12y ago
>Lots of insurance has a deductible Aw yiss! Bureaucracy is so much better when it's private bureaucracy! Nothing against you, mind, it's just that I hate that kind of stuff.

sp332 12y ago

Is it more than nothing, where nothing == taxes? I'm guessing that the amount of your annual taxes that goes toward health care is > ($300 * chance of you incurring $300 in health care costs).

throwaway283719 12y ago
Why guess, when you could get some data? In the UK, the per-capita spend on healthcare is $3480, of which $2919 is paid by the government (and so raised via taxes) and $561 is private (via health insurance or direct payment). In the US, the per-capita spend is $8362, of which $4437 is paid by the government (via taxes) and $3925 is private (via health insurance). This is only a cursory glance, but it does look a bit like nationalized healthcare results in lower private spending and lower government spending (the extra spend in the US presumably goes into the pockets of doctors, pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies). Data sourced from the World Health Organization, via The Guardian[0] [0] http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jun/30/healthcare-spending-world-country http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jun/30/healthc...
- sp332 12y ago
  I wasn't really defending the US system in general, but I don't think nationalizing healthcare in the USA will lower taxes. The inefficiencies aren't inherent in privatized health care, they are a result of a corrupt system. The corruption isn't going to change if we give the government more control over the system.
  - robotresearcher 12y ago
    Why not? Cutting the insurance companies completely out of the picture changes almost everything.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > The inefficiencies aren't inherent in privatized health care No, but lots of them are inherent in having a nest of overlapping private and public health insurers (regular, workers compensation, and others) each of whom spend considerable resources making sure that they don't pay for something a different insurer (public or private) could instead be compelled to pay for. > they are a result of a corrupt system. Believing that the excess costs in the US system are a result of "corruption" rather than the structural inefficiencies of the architecture of the system requires believing that Americans are unusually, among citizens of developed countries, corrupt. This is not utterly implausible, but it is a claim that requires some support.

baddox 12y ago

It's also more than -$300, and it would certainly be nice if the doctor paid you to use his or her services.