Re:Does Employment-Based Insurance Make US Medical Care Unfa...
by arcticbull on Monday May 13, 2019 @08:15PM
(#19905460)
> Insurance is supposed to hedge against risk. You might need a broken arm; I will never need a hysterectomy or birth control (especially not the type covered by insurance).
Hedge against group risk. Why should I pay for your house burning down because it started on your deck? I don't have a deck. That's a terrible way of looking at it. The bigger the group/risk pool, the cheaper it is for everyone.
> And if the rural hospitals then shut down due to not being able to cover costs?
Sorry, that's not how socialized programs work. If there's particular need in communities they receive more funding. Or, the government flies people to nearby communities to seek treatment (see Northern Canada, Svalbard, etc).
> The definition of single-payer is in the name - there is a single entity which pays for insurance. A single payer. That means, definitionally, no private/supplemental insurance, no cash payments, no nothing. Experimental treatment may not be covered by private insurance, but at least it can be purchased with cash. A single-payer system definitionally precludes a cash option.
That's fine. Two tier is also fine. What's not fine is the status quo.
> Wrong; see above. Medicare is also subsidized in no small part by higher-paying patients; because it often reimburses at below-market rates, private coverage is necessary to pick up the slack.
Medicare subsidizes the private market by taking literally all the worst customers out of the risk pool. You've got this completely backwards. Without Medicare private cover would be astronomically expensive or have no margin.
Hedge against group risk. Why should I pay for your house burning down because it started on your deck? I don't have a deck. That's a terrible way of looking at it. The bigger the group/risk pool, the cheaper it is for everyone.
> And if the rural hospitals then shut down due to not being able to cover costs?
Sorry, that's not how socialized programs work. If there's particular need in communities they receive more funding. Or, the government flies people to nearby communities to seek treatment (see Northern Canada, Svalbard, etc).
> The definition of single-payer is in the name - there is a single entity which pays for insurance. A single payer. That means, definitionally, no private/supplemental insurance, no cash payments, no nothing. Experimental treatment may not be covered by private insurance, but at least it can be purchased with cash. A single-payer system definitionally precludes a cash option.
That's fine. Two tier is also fine. What's not fine is the status quo.
> Wrong; see above. Medicare is also subsidized in no small part by higher-paying patients; because it often reimburses at below-market rates, private coverage is necessary to pick up the slack.
Medicare subsidizes the private market by taking literally all the worst customers out of the risk pool. You've got this completely backwards. Without Medicare private cover would be astronomically expensive or have no margin.