3 ms·

In the real world as it stands, there isn't a 100% probability of ridiculously high costs. Plenty of us will go out with a bang in some way, or at least quietly

by rm445 12y ago

In the real world as it stands, there isn't a 100% probability of ridiculously high costs. Plenty of us will go out with a bang in some way, or at least quietly and quickly. (Perhaps that isn't the utopian ideal). The whole system could be reasonably modelled as personal saving for significant expected costs plus insurance against the really big hitters - I read a rather breathless article singing the praises of Singapore for organising things this way. That doesn't really change for a national system except the country self-insures against the expensive illnesses. I agree wholeheartedly with your last paragraph, but while national health systems probably look nice from the vantage point of the USA, it hasn't really been tested whether such systems will hold together - whether the populace has the will to pay the real costs - in a world that keeps moving in the direction of longer lives with more expensive care.

lotsofpulp 12y ago
Even though I know that it's not exactly 100%, I assumed it since factoring in end of life costs like ambulance, emergency room procedures for resuscitation and whatnot would probably apply to so many people that for the ones that go out without cost is inconsequential, e.g. falling off a bridge or something. And if most people can't even save for a rainy day fund, how can we expect them to save for diabetes and hypertension and dialysis meds that cost hundreds or thousands of dollars? The funny thing is that in the US, we have some stupid hybrid taxpayer/insurance subsidized healthcare scheme called Medicaid, but only if you're old. Bottom line is the US public thinks it's unconscionable (or politically untenable) to deny healthcare if someone is dying, but not in any other situation, and at the same time thinks people should be responsible for providing for themselves, which at current healthcare costs is simply not going to happen.
jellicle 12y ago
> whether such systems will hold together - whether the populace has the will to pay the real costs You seem to be suggesting that universal healthcare costs the population a lot of money. In point of fact, Canada spends half as much per person as the United States does, and provides healthcare to its entire population. If the United States implemented the Canadian system tomorrow, the amount of money it would save as a nation would be immense, on the order of a TRILLION dollars per year. The question is whether the U.S. can continue to pay the exorbitant costs of its privatized system, not the other way around.

by rm445 12y ago

lotsofpulp 12y ago

Even though I know that it's not exactly 100%, I assumed it since factoring in end of life costs like ambulance, emergency room procedures for resuscitation and whatnot would probably apply to so many people that for the ones that go out without cost is inconsequential, e.g. falling off a bridge or something. And if most people can't even save for a rainy day fund, how can we expect them to save for diabetes and hypertension and dialysis meds that cost hundreds or thousands of dollars? The funny thing is that in the US, we have some stupid hybrid taxpayer/insurance subsidized healthcare scheme called Medicaid, but only if you're old. Bottom line is the US public thinks it's unconscionable (or politically untenable) to deny healthcare if someone is dying, but not in any other situation, and at the same time thinks people should be responsible for providing for themselves, which at current healthcare costs is simply not going to happen.

jellicle 12y ago

> whether such systems will hold together - whether the populace has the will to pay the real costs You seem to be suggesting that universal healthcare costs the population a lot of money. In point of fact, Canada spends half as much per person as the United States does, and provides healthcare to its entire population. If the United States implemented the Canadian system tomorrow, the amount of money it would save as a nation would be immense, on the order of a TRILLION dollars per year. The question is whether the U.S. can continue to pay the exorbitant costs of its privatized system, not the other way around.