Patently stupid

Posted Oct 12, 2012 7:58 UTC (Fri) by ekj (guest, #1524)
In reply to: Patently stupid by dlang
Parent article: The Patent, Used as a Sword (New York Times)

Medical care has (strongly) diminishing returns. For a given investment, the return is much higher by investing in those who receive little to no medical care, instead of investing further in those who already have good medical care.

You're saying that in a fully governmental medical system, there's a risk that a few people who get only good care, but could avoid paying out-of-pocket for excellent care, are worse off. Countries with universal healthcare don't typically have any rules prohibiting buying additional care for yourself though, so this is largely a strawman.

I've not seen anyone claim that the medical care available to those with money in USA is a disgrace. The part that is disgraceful is at the other end of the scale.

Universal health care

Posted Oct 12, 2012 8:14 UTC (Fri) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link] (5 responses)

Right. The paradox that nix outlines above is that in countries with universal health care, often it is the public service the one that provides for the most expensive or advanced treatments, while private insurance excels at primary health care.

I've not seen anyone claim that the medical care available to those with money in USA is a disgrace. The part that is disgraceful is at the other end of the scale.

I have read that the worst part of the spectrum at the USA is not either rich people (who are well cared for) nor poor people (who have Medicaid), but the middle classes.

Universal health care

Posted Oct 12, 2012 8:49 UTC (Fri) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link] (4 responses)

Yes, that's often the case. If you're really poor, you qualify for governmental support in some form, and you're not vulnerable to financial loss because you have essentially nothing to lose anyway.

A lower middle-class person who gets sick with no health-insurance, risks losing the small amount of wealth he has, and to have the income of the family drop to welfare levels. A person with essentially zero wealth, and income which is already at welfare-levels is immune to financial woes of this sort.

According to CNN, medical debt is involved in 60% of the personal bankruptices that occur. I'm guessing that's mainly people who are neither wealthy nor dirt-poor.

Universal health care

Posted Oct 12, 2012 9:23 UTC (Fri) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link]

That is a real shame. I have a brother who received a kidney transplant from the public health care system, and I am aware that my family might have gone bankrupt if it had happened in the US. Having to choose between death and poverty is very sad and a bit dickensian; you need a writer that exposes such a shameful situation to the world, or something.

Universal health care

Posted Oct 12, 2012 9:44 UTC (Fri) by cortana (subscriber, #24596) [Link] (1 responses)

> If you're really poor, you qualify for governmental support in some form, and you're not vulnerable to financial loss because you have essentially nothing to lose anyway.

You can lose your credit rating! This means you will pay significantly more for any kind of credit for many, many years in the future.

Universal health care

Posted Oct 12, 2012 10:18 UTC (Fri) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link]

True. But:

A) If you're "really poor", your credit rating is likely to be poor to catastrophic already.

B) It's still a larger loss to loose large fractions of your income, and all of your wealth, and your credit-rating, instead of losing only your credit-rating.

C) If you're "really poor", then there's very few situations where getting credit will help you, it will help short-term, but at a cost of additional pain longer term. The exception is if the short-term cost is for something that gives you additional income longer-term. (say buying a used car, to be able to commute to a new job you got)

Universal health care

Posted Oct 13, 2012 0:56 UTC (Sat) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link]

The biggest problem for the 'uninsured' is that they get chaged FAR more for the same medical care as someone who is 'insured'

My Insurance gives me a statement for each transaction that shows what the medical provider billed, what the 'negotiated' rate that the Insurance company is actually going to pay based on, and how much of that I owe.

I's very common for the insurance rate to be a 60% or larger discount of the price that an individual would have to pay. I've seen quite a few cases where what the provider accepts as 'payment in full' is a 90% discount off of what they would charge someone without insurance.

And it doesn't matter if the Insurance company is going to pay the bill, or if I am going to have to pay the bill (part of the deductable, past the limit for the year, etc)

If I could pay the same rates that the Insurance companies pay, I would not need to have any insurance beyond a 'catastrophic event' policy that wouldn't kick in without an event over say $10,000