@quackquack saidThe whole concept of mutual insurance is to contribute to a pot of money that pays out to those in need, so that no one is ruined by an incident. Constraints on freeloading are entirely appropriate.
The fairest system is you get what you pay for. When you make coverage Universal you are forcing some people to pay for others coverage. Right now in the US we have Medicaid for poor people and others pay for themselves (thus everyone is covered). The only people who object are people who really are using healthcare as a guise for economic redistribution.
@quackquack saidJust compare the US system with the dear old NHS. (Which IS INEFFICIENT)
Nothing is more efficient when the government runs it. Whether its road work, the military, the subways, bridges.... ever the government is over budget.
The NHS still comes out cheaper!
1 edit
@js357 saidI live in a country where only half the people pay the most burdensome tax -- income tax. To force those who already pay too much to pay even more so everyone has coverage is just a way to make things even worse.
So everything is rosy?
Health insurance should be like homeowners insurance. It should not pay for office visits, twenty dollar medicines or birth control the same way a homeowners policy wouldn't cover a broken window. Health insurance should cover huge expenses like twenty five thousand dollar plus surgeries. Small expenses should be covered by individuals.
@quackquack saidIf you applied that illogic to something like insurance coverage for a house, all people in coastal cities in the US should pay for their own hurricane damage and central US states should pay for their own flood damage since I live 150 miles inland and have no hurricanes and very rarely floods. That reeks of Social Darwinism, survival of the fittest. Maybe you should get a copy of "Walden" and go live in the woods.
The fairest system is you get what you pay for. When you make coverage Universal you are forcing some people to pay for others coverage. Right now in the US we have Medicaid for poor people and others pay for themselves (thus everyone is covered). The only people who object are people who really are using healthcare as a guise for economic redistribution.
@fireagate saidThe idea that the government make serfs out of the US population for our greater good is not found in the Constitution.
Many of you chess players live in countries that has this type of healthcare system. Please tell us pros or cons of your personal experiences with your healthcare system. I believe that the United States should have a universal healthcare system, ie.. Medicare for All (M4A).
As a matter of fact, what is found in the Constitution is quite the opposite.
1 edit
@caissad4 saidActually it is economically efficient for people to pay for their own flood and hurricane insurance. This way they will consider the cost of floods and hurricanes when they decide where to live. I'm not sure why you would ever argue otherwise.
If you applied that illogic to something like insurance coverage for a house, all people in coastal cities in the US should pay for their own hurricane damage and central US states should pay for their own flood damage since I live 150 miles inland and have no hurricanes and very rarely floods. That reeks of Social Darwinism, survival of the fittest. Maybe you should get a copy of "Walden" and go live in the woods.
@quackquack saidSo I pay typically a $35 copay for each visit including when they call ME in. Some procedures have three figure copays. I just renewed an rX for $96 thank you and that’s for one of my 4 drugs. . I pay $106/month to Medicare just for kicks. Last year I had an emergency that cost ~$98,000 on paper. I paid about ~$2000. Of course I’m a retiree who made and paid a lot over the years. That’s Medicare.
I live in a country where only half the people pay the most burdensome tax -- income tax. To force those who already pay too much to pay even more so everyone has coverage is just a way to make things even worse.
Health insurance should be like homeowners insurance. It should not pay for office visits, twenty dollar medicines or birth control the same way a homeowners ...[text shortened]... like twenty five thousand dollar plus surgeries. Small expenses should be covered by individuals.
Meet your criteria?
I wonder how many people understand Medicare. It ain’t cheap.
@js357 saidFor all those who pay into Medicare their entire adult life and die before retiring, that is Medicare too.
So I pay typically a $35 copay for each visit including when they call ME in. Some procedures have three figure copays. I just renewed an rX for $96 thank you and that’s for one of my 4 drugs. . I pay $106/month to Medicare just for kicks. Last year I had an emergency that cost ~$98,000 on paper. I paid about ~$2000. Of course I’m a retiree who made and paid a lot over the yea ...[text shortened]... s Medicare.
Meet your criteria?
I wonder how many people understand Medicare. It ain’t cheap.
Better would be a personal savings account to then use to pay for insurance or pass on to their adult kids and grandchildren.
@quackquack saidYou do not understand how the insurance industry work in the USA
Actually it is economically efficient for people to pay for their own flood and hurricane insurance. This way they will consider the cost of floods and hurricanes when they decide where to live. I'm not sure why you would ever argue otherwise.