Quote:
Originally Posted by Barefootsies
I hear what you are saying.
I agree that the U.S. should, or could, provide some measure of ... the term escapes me... major medical to those who seriously can't afford it. Homeless, under $20k a year, working poor, whatever. These people should be able to die on a bed like anyone else.
I do not think everyone should get free or subsidized coverage. Myself included. I can afford it if I want it.
I opted out of health care this year because the past couple of years, I spent more in premiums then I would have gotten back in coverage. For example, my doctor visits were not covered. I paid 50% or more on most of the tests and xrays I would receive. About the only thing I had gotten a decent discount on was medicine. But I am rarely sick as I am 36. This is with Blue Cross Blue Shield mind you.
I did shop around some for other carriers before dropping them completely. However, I love this shit, most insurance companies now will not insure you if you are over a target weight for your height. (new insurance)
So in my case, I think I the cut off for someone 6' is 220 lbs. I weight more than that by 30. So they would not cover me until I hit their max out weight and height limit.
This past year, I was at the doctors office all of one time. Early in the year. That is only because they would not give me a script without going in there. Although it is a recurring problem.
So 2008 medical bill. $71.00 plus a $15 prescription.
 |
From an economic standpoint, covering only the big things doesn't make sense. Mainly because in many cases, starting treatment of an illness at an early phase ends up being far cheaper than only providing it when there is no other choice. Give people the possibility to visit their GP as soon as they notice there's something wrong, and you actually end up saving money down the line. Even more so because early treatment can often prevent functional disability.
So offering anything short of full coverage does not actually save money.
In fact, the only thing that really is cheaper than offering full coverage of all essentials (including GP visits and treatment for conditions that aren't life-threatening) is withholding essential treatment from those who can not pay for it. In that case, though, you will have numerous people dying from trivial illnesses. Some of which, of course, will prove to be infectious ones which will spread to others.
The US system is a great example of the above, actually. It spends around 50% more on health care per capita than other western countries of similar relative wealth do, spends just as much tax money as other western countries on health care, fails to provide universal coverage, and fails to provide a higher standard of care than other countries which spend far less and cover everyone.
It's a ridiculous system
As for not getting health insurance... the true point of getting insurance is not to make yearly net gains. It's to have a safeguard for exceptional situations which would be impossible to deal with otherwise. A bit of bad luck can leave you with hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills. Insurance serves to spread that risk between a large number of people, so they end up with manageable monthly costs rather than crippling once-in-a-lifetime ones.