Let's care about folks who can pay
May. 22nd, 2019 09:41 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mprotsenkoI had a discussion recently about different types of healthcare system. Heard a very honest argument along those lines (not verbatim so I may misinterpret it but I do hope I summarize in the right way):
- Yep, the poor are screwed, but what about those who can pay? Shouldn't we care about them too? Does it make sense to prioritize that care? If we start caring about poor, others will suffer and that's bad.
Well, a couple of months ago I took part in a fundraiser. People were collecting money for a software developer (a friend of a friend of mine). Why? After all, if you work in Facebook, you get the best health insurance money can buy. If you work in Facebook - you are not poor, you belong to top 1-5% incomewise. He must have done something really wrong to screw things up so bad he needs to beg. It must be a poor decision. It will never happen to us. Right?
Well, wrong. Turns out - if you have a cancer, if you're too sick to work, you lose your job. After a certain period of time, your disability insurance stops paying - since you're "healthy" enough to be doing something (even if this something is paying 10x-20x less than your last job). You still need to make your mortgage payments (your kids need to go to a good school, right?), but you also need to travel out-of-state to a clinic that specialized in your type of cancer (and pay out-of-network copays and deductibles). And you need to rent another place to stay during your treatment. Ah, and in addition to that you need to make insurance premium payments (fortunately, due to CORBA you get to keep your insurance - but you still need to cough up several thousands dollars a month).
So if you think that a single payer system only benefits poor people - think again. When you are going to become sick (not if, when - it is a matter of time for all of us) - it is going to become about you, not about poor people. (Unless you have a few hundred thousand dollars stashed away.)
The only lucky break here is that you can be old enough to qualify for an existing single payer health coverage (Medicare, yep).
- Yep, the poor are screwed, but what about those who can pay? Shouldn't we care about them too? Does it make sense to prioritize that care? If we start caring about poor, others will suffer and that's bad.
Well, a couple of months ago I took part in a fundraiser. People were collecting money for a software developer (a friend of a friend of mine). Why? After all, if you work in Facebook, you get the best health insurance money can buy. If you work in Facebook - you are not poor, you belong to top 1-5% incomewise. He must have done something really wrong to screw things up so bad he needs to beg. It must be a poor decision. It will never happen to us. Right?
Well, wrong. Turns out - if you have a cancer, if you're too sick to work, you lose your job. After a certain period of time, your disability insurance stops paying - since you're "healthy" enough to be doing something (even if this something is paying 10x-20x less than your last job). You still need to make your mortgage payments (your kids need to go to a good school, right?), but you also need to travel out-of-state to a clinic that specialized in your type of cancer (and pay out-of-network copays and deductibles). And you need to rent another place to stay during your treatment. Ah, and in addition to that you need to make insurance premium payments (fortunately, due to CORBA you get to keep your insurance - but you still need to cough up several thousands dollars a month).
So if you think that a single payer system only benefits poor people - think again. When you are going to become sick (not if, when - it is a matter of time for all of us) - it is going to become about you, not about poor people. (Unless you have a few hundred thousand dollars stashed away.)
The only lucky break here is that you can be old enough to qualify for an existing single payer health coverage (Medicare, yep).
(no subject)
Date: 2019-05-23 07:17 pm (UTC)My problem with word "fancy" is that it sounds like something unnecessary, something you can live without.
- A cheap beat-up truck moves my ass from point A to point B the same way my fancy plug-in hybrid does.
- A cheap homemade meal has the same nutrients as a meal in a fancy restaurant.
- Cheap jeans cover my butt the same way D&G clothing does.
On the contrary - "fancy" care means getting access to specialized care that literally means difference between life and death. Or at least between financial catastrophe and normal life. That's not fancy for me, that is necessity.
I don't want to go into details of survivor bias - the same house can be sold for 20% above listing price or 5% below (depending on market condition/time of year). Sometimes it means losing money (even if you sell it for 10% over asking prices - agent commissions, taxes etc.) Unfortunately, you usually don't get to decide "okay, the market is hot right now, it is a good time to get sick and sell the house."
Tthat is not important. The important question is:
Would you be able to survive a severe illness that leaves you unable to work for months or years without going through financial ruin and jeopardizing future of your kids?
P.S. Can I remind you about Canada numbers (speaking of different). I am really curious how did you come with conclusion "Canada is worse when it comes to healthcare" - because I did the same math and the only scenario that works better for me in the US is "I stay lucky and healthy and don't need a lot of healthcare before retirement."
(no subject)
Date: 2019-11-21 07:25 pm (UTC)not in USA