Two problems - one is adverse selection, the other is that uninsured people still get care anyway (showing up at the ER) and somebody has to pay for it. Right now we do it by bankrupting every 20th person that walks through the door, which seems rather unfair.

> uninsured people still get care anyway (showing up at the ER)

This is somewhat of a myth; at least it is nuanced. The care in the ER is to stabilize the patient, not fix them. They provide acute care only.

Even acute care can be quite limited. People are triaged based on how acute their case is. Many languish in an uncomfortable waiting room for hours till they crash or leave.

This rationing is done by limiting the beds so that the ER is almost always over capacity. This is by design. Since ER are cost centers, when a hospital asks for a building permit from the municipality, the number of emergency room beds open to the public is the primary negotiation. It's the bottleneck that limits costs.

Emergency beds equipped to handle trauma, e.g, gunshot wounds or car accidents, is even more limited. To avoid costs, many hospitals simply do not have a trauma center, unless the municipality agrees to have significant subsidy. People die in ambulances while they search for a hospital with an open trauma bed.

This is a complex and heartbreaking topic.

It's not complex, it's a great example of poor resource allocation. For how much we collectively spend on healthcare, there should be no perform finding it. The resources are going to the wrong place (profit, insurance, admin).

The uninsured people hold off on getting care for so long that by the time they can finally get care, it's ER time, converting a $20 visit and some antibiotics to a $100k case of amputation, or whatever.

It used to be, and should be again, that the hospital owner or physician would foot the bill if you couldn’t pay. Much more direct charity, a beautiful thing.

Taxing everyone to hell to cover every health expense is immoral.

How is it more moral to force someone to provide care for free than it is to tax the populace to provide universal care?

I wish those advocating universal taxing for crappy care would take the moral high road and not rob his fellow citizen to pay for his bills. Instead, let his fellow citizen give freely in love.

Universal healthcare is such a moral sham, and what we have now in the US is also pretty bad. There is a better way.

If you really mean donations, you are not going to get that many billions of dollars in donations. This specific "better way" does not exist.

If you're trying to get enough hospitals to do this that people don't just go to a cheaper hospital, then almost all hospitals are going to have to raise their prices... and that's effectively the same as a tax. They're "robbing" every patient the same way.

Of course I mean donations, either through your family, church, or beyond. Of course it’s possible, there’s even a network now called Samaritan’s that facilitates this.

The hospital can turn of course offer to foot the bill, but can do so only after you’ve exhausted other options. But none of this is forced.

You won't get enough. People will go bankrupt, which makes everyone else pay but in a messier and overall worse way than taxes.

Not going to defend universal healthcare or healthcare taxes, seeing I'm currently getting fucked by that at this moment, but given the way you wrote that I feel that you need to be pointed out that this results in either:

1) More expensive healthcare, to cover for these cases directly in a fund or via third party insurance.

2) Healthcare scarcity.

You can't draw blood from a stone. Healthcare investors/workers at large don't get in to become a charity so your "solution" comes with explicit downsides you should mention.

It only results in those if you keep the regulation levels high, which we have now. We need a multi-faceted approach which lets the market lower prices. Local control, local solutions. More efficiency, human touch, love.

No solution is perfect, but that’s a world that’s more personal for those helping and being helped. It also is more economically efficient. I’m not saying this is the only solution, but one that starts with robbing your neighbor is the moral low route and we should and can do better.

Force hospital to provide care for indigents -> hospital raises prices for everyone to cover -> same effect as a tax. I'd much rather just be up front about it.

Not forcing, the universal crap care option is forcing through robbing his neighbor.

Where do you think those dollars go? Hospitals aren't that great of an investment, but insurance companies are

Many people living in the gig economy have a lower income [1], and less stable income than the average. Add to that the US has the highest cost healthcare in the developed world [2], more than twice the cost per person compared to where I live, Sweden. With four years lower life expectancy [3]. There are clearly better ways to get healthcare for everyone.

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/28/about-half-of-californias-gi...

[2] The U.S. spent $8,233 on health per person in 2010. Norway, the Netherlands and Switzerland are the next highest spenders, but in the same year, they all spent at least $3,000 less per person. The average spending on health care among the other 33 developed OECD countries was $3,268 per person. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/health-costs-how-the-us-...

[3] https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy

Is that the same marketplace where health insurance starts at $500 / mo, when my job subsidizes my insurance down to $0 / mo (HSA) and like $10 to $100 a month for PPO?

When you're already working the gig economy, I imagine $500 / mo is a lot more of your relative income than $100 or whatever for me.

Wages for a huge swath of the country have not kept up with inflation over the last half a century, pressuring the 'lower class'.

Many people have to choose between paying for something that primarily only matters in case of a bad event (health insurance), versus paying for things that if they don't pay for them, bad things happen with certainty, fairly quickly - loss of power, going hungry, not having gas for the car that they require because our public transit systems have been systematically disassembled (again over the last half a century), astronomical interest/late fees on loans and a credit score drop that can mean credit gets even more expensive, or is automatically revoked, or impacts one's ability to find employment in a kafka-esque hell where having too bad a credit rating means a fair number of companies won't employ you.

When Wallyworld has staff who train employees in how to file for government benefits, maybe it's time to look at corporate tax share (in the 50's it used to be about 50%, now it's a few percent) and minimum wages.

Because when they do need it, they will demand the government provide it anyway.

It is like employment insurance. Self employed love to opt out, but come a major economic crisis, they demand they be allowed to participate.

In any other developed country there are some cost controls on health care. Without that universal health care will never work.

that's how you end up with 45,000 people in the US of A dying each year from lack of health care...COVID killed 380,000 Americans because they lacked health care, not sure why its such a bad idea to give everyone healthcare

>that's how you end up with 45,000 people in the US of A dying each year from lack of health care...COVID killed 380,000 Americans because they lacked health care

What's the methodology for calculating the amount of people dying from "lack of health care"?

if I had to guess, easily treatable illnesses where the early warning signs were not taken care of - or even the medium warning signs weren't taken care of, when it was treatable, correlated with "why didn't you go to the hospital?" and "couldn't afford it"

If I had to guess. I haven't looked, though, of course.

Adverse selection and thus unaffordably expensive.