patrick.net

Goran_K says

It's frightening to think people would trust the same entity that runs USPS, or the DMV to run our health care system.

It's frightening to me that people want these guys running our health care system:

/post/1313761/2018-02-12-stunning-admission-by-aetna-may-reshape-insurance-industry

WookieMan says

I could be misreading your comment but @zzyyzzx I believe is pointing out the copay. There's a high likelihood she would have a much cheaper co-pay if more segments of the population pulled their weight when it comes to paying for health related services. It should be $20 instead of $116, if even that much. She could afford it either way of course so you are definitely correct, kind of stupid on her end not to just get the meds.

The reality is no American should be paying $116 for basic flu meds and others not paying a dime to get the same meds. That's nuts.

Sure, you could argue that her co-pay was high but IMO not out of the ball park ridiculous, especially for someone in her income bracket.

But saying it "should be this price" is ignoring the reality of her insurance plan. Did she not agree to that insurance plan when she took the job? Did she not have the choice to not take that job but a job with a better insurance plan?

The reason she died wasn't because of a high co-pay, the reason she died was because she was too cheap to pay the co-pay for an insurance plan she agreed to as compensation for her job, so she decided to "tough it out".

Bad mistake. It cost this woman her life.

Goran_K says

But saying it "should be this price" is ignoring the reality of her insurance plan. Did she not agree to that insurance plan when she took the job? Did she not have the choice to not take that job but a job with a better insurance plan?

The reason she died wasn't because of a high co-pay, the reason she died was because she was too cheap to pay the co-pay for an insurance plan she agreed to as compensation for her job, so she decided to "tough it out".

Bad mistake. It cost this woman her life.

Does this mean there was a Personal Responsibility element to this story, and the government wouldn't run in to save her from her own mistakes?

Sniper says

Does this mean there was a Personal Responsibility element to this story, and the government wouldn't run in to save her from her own mistakes?

A foreign concept these days.

Goran_K says

Isn't Medicare and Medicaid representative of your second option?

No. Under a national Capitalistic competitiveness model everyone is covered. Medicare and Medicaid mostly covers people who aren't productive. In order to be competitive you need to cover productive people, so medical coverage doesn't limit their employment/entrepreneurial choices. From a competitive standpoint, the current system is a failure because it only supports non-producers. A universal coverage system has the advantage of encouraging entrepreneurial behavior and employee movement, while being socially acceptable because it also covers those who would otherwise die outside the emergency room door.

Best of both worlds.

HowdyThere says

Medicare and Medicaid mostly covers people who aren't productive. In order to be competitive you need to cover productive people, so medical coverage doesn't limit their employment/entrepreneurial choices. From a competitive standpoint, the current system is a failure because it only supports non-producers.

That's actually not correct. With the passing of Obamacare, close to 3/4 of enrollees in the exchanges were put into Medicaid, not because they were non-productive, but because they were low income. This included many YOUNG minimum wage workers and many part time workers.

Plus, there are many people on Medicare who are also still working regularly and full time. Medicare isn't just for retired workers.

Are these people considered non-producers?


HowdyThere says

while being socially acceptable because it also covers those who would otherwise die outside the emergency room door.

That's not accurate either. Hospitals have a legal responsibility to treat anyone who comes in with life threatening conditions, there is no bearing if they have insurance or not.

HowdyThere says

No. Under a national Capitalistic competitiveness model everyone is covered. Medicare and Medicaid mostly covers people who aren't productive. In order to be competitive you need to cover productive people, so medical coverage doesn't limit their employment/entrepreneurial choices. From a competitive standpoint, the current system is a failure because it only supports non-producers. A universal coverage system has the advantage of encouraging entrepreneurial behavior and employee movement, while being socially acceptable because it also covers those who would otherwise die outside the emergency room door.

Best of both worlds.

So how does your system solve the "problem" of unproductive people?