SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Which world would you rather live in?
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 192 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
You can't have your cake and let your neighbor eat it too.
-- Ayn Rand
(Score: 5, Interesting) by julian on Saturday December 28 2019, @11:35PM (9 children)
That is the LITERAL DESCRIPTION OF INSURANCE. This is what's so maddening to me. I work in healthcare, so I understand this stuff better than most people. The nightmare scenario where you have to pay for other people's bad choices by paying into a risk pool which pays out based on need is exactly the system we are living under right now. It's just that the way we currently do it, those risk pools are privately administered for profit. So not only do the books have to balance, they have to take in more than they pay out so that they can turn a profit. The government only has to break even (and can even borrow money from itself in an emergency). This is why the best and most efficient "insurance" in the USA today is Medicare. Also, the way risk pools work is that they get more efficient the larger they are. The most efficient insurance possible is a risk pool made up of the entire country, and run with the goal of breaking even.
With the ACA, the Democrats caved to the Republicans and adopted the conservative plan. The ACA (Obamacare) is a right-wing plan for insurance. That's just the truth, it came from the Heritage Foundation and was piloted in Massachusetts by Republican Governor Romney. But Republicans are spiteful shitheels, so anything the Democrats do, they have to move further to the right. But there is no insurance model further to the right. The only option is to go back to a pre-insurance world where healthcare is just done pay-as-you-go like consumers buy clothes, etc. Healthcare used to be done this way. It was so terrible we had to invent health insurance!
It's one thing to have an ideological disagreement on the best course of action for some policy. That's not what we are doing on healthcare in this country. One side simply doesn't have all the facts, is ignorant of history, ignorant of mathematics and statistics, and lacking basic compassion for people not in their immediate family or community. I can't negotiate with that. Who could? These people can't be beat at argument any more than I could beat a pigeon. It doesn't matter if I'm right and bring the receipts. They can't be pursuaded, they just have to be beaten. We have to get the plurality of this country that doesn't vote at all to actually come out for someone like Bernie Sanders. Everyone else is starting from a weak negotiating position of compromising on the first move.
Medicare for All!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday December 29 2019, @02:56AM (6 children)
That's one way of looking at it. Another is betting against your own health.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 30 2019, @08:34PM (2 children)
This did not deserve Troll mod.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday December 30 2019, @09:54PM (1 child)
No kidding. That's exactly what it is. A recurring wager that you will get sick. You put down your premium and if you win that month they pay your medical bills.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 02 2020, @11:02PM
Such an amazing basis for human health care!! /sarcsasm
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday January 06 2020, @05:20PM (2 children)
And car insurance is a bet against your driving ability, and homeowner's insurance is a bet against your home's continued value. The point of insurance is that if you're like most people a surprise $300,000 bill is not something you can solve by just writing a check and getting on with your life.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Osamabobama on Monday January 06 2020, @09:48PM
It's okay if you play to lose.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday January 06 2020, @10:16PM
In most of the states I've lived in, you're not required to have car insurance if you're willing to keep roughly as much as the minimum coverage socked away in an account for that purpose alone. Me, I'd rather draw interest than pay for something I haven't used once in my entire life.
Insurance is never a good bet if you can at all avoid it. You're screwed if you lose, you're screwed if you win, and it cuts a big chunk out of your budget that you could otherwise be putting to work for you.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by jasassin on Tuesday January 14 2020, @02:22AM (1 child)
I agree. The problem is, for example, people like my mom who get a month prescription and they charge $1880.00US for it (this is a fact) because medicare pays $1800 of it and she pays $80 out of pocket. $1800 for a 30 day supply of pills? THAT is the problem with Medicare and the pharmaceutical companies. They massively overcharge because they can screw Medicare (i.e. the tax payers) over for it.
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 25 2020, @01:09AM
The solution to that is Single Payer. With that in place the prices will be negotiated down to reasonable levels.