That's precisely WHY it's a good solution. Those who have expensive conditions should pay more for their care. If they cannot afford to do so, they should be dropped from care.
What the fuck kind of shit is this?
So you think poor people should just die because they don't have any money? You do realize that diabetics who can't afford their medication will die because their bodies can't process sugar, right? Or that without antiretroviral treatment, AIDS can kill people in a matter of months?
Not to mention that you completely did a 180. I said that you don't think poor people's health isn't important enough to tax people for; you said that private health insurance was a solution. When I pointed out that it wouldn't help poor people because there is no natural incentive for covering the poor who are also sick, you then changed the objective.
The original POINT of health insurance, if you look at the history of health insurance, was to pay into a system that would cover everyone so that if something catastrophic happened or you developed a serious illness, you could pay for it even if you weren't rich. Original HMOs were non-profit like the Mayo Clinic; the point was to provide health care. It wasn't until rich investors got involved that they started inventing things like higher premiums for sicker people. It's easy for you to say that they should be dropped from care because you are privileged to be healthy, relatively young, and able to cover what you need now. What would do if you got hit by a car and needed a $300,000 open-heart surgery to live? Or if you developed diabetes in a few years and needed to spend thousands on the materials and things? Are we just supposed to let people die simply because they don't have the money to pay for these things? If that's the case, what good is the "best healthcare system in the work" if only a very few can afford them?
What the fuck kind of shit is this?
So you think poor people should just die because they don't have any money? You do realize that diabetics who can't afford their medication will die because their bodies can't process sugar, right? Or that without antiretroviral treatment, AIDS can kill people in a matter of months?
Not to mention that you completely did a 180. I said that you don't think poor people's health isn't important enough to tax people for; you said that private health insurance was a solution. When I pointed out that it wouldn't help poor people because there is no natural incentive for covering the poor who are also sick, you then changed the objective.
The original POINT of health insurance, if you look at the history of health insurance, was to pay into a system that would cover everyone so that if something catastrophic happened or you developed a serious illness, you could pay for it even if you weren't rich. Original HMOs were non-profit like the Mayo Clinic; the point was to provide health care. It wasn't until rich investors got involved that they started inventing things like higher premiums for sicker people. It's easy for you to say that they should be dropped from care because you are privileged to be healthy, relatively young, and able to cover what you need now. What would do if you got hit by a car and needed a $300,000 open-heart surgery to live? Or if you developed diabetes in a few years and needed to spend thousands on the materials and things? Are we just supposed to let people die simply because they don't have the money to pay for these things? If that's the case, what good is the "best healthcare system in the work" if only a very few can afford them?
Reply
Leave a comment