Comment by nexuist | Hacker News Reader

Comment by nexuist | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> The alternative is that everyone gets access to sub-par care.

Sub-par care is excellent when the current reality is that most people don't get access to any care at all.

You must understand that the vast, vast majority of people don't go to doctors. They don't have dentists. When a poor person is in pain they will continue to be in pain until the pain goes away or they die.

When given that versus a shitty but free healthcare system, who wouldn't want to see a doctor? To get $5 prescriptions to medicine that can help them?

And remember, this is assuming the healthcare system will be shitty - universal healthcare has never been repealed in a country that has implemented it. Don't you think if the citizens of these countries were so fed up with free care, they would be protesting and electing candidates that promise to dismantle it? Even Boris Johnson has to tiptoe around privatizing the NHS because he knows how wildly unpopular that would be, even among his conservative constituents.

>Sub-par care is excellent when the current reality is that most people don't get access to any care at all.

>You must understand that the vast, vast majority of people don't go to doctors. They don't have dentists.

Uhh… what? This sounds either out of scope for the US or just wildly inaccurate. Over 90% of Americans have insurance.

Edit: I do not live in a bubble. I stand by this comment, "only" 1/3 delay medical treatment [0]. The claim that the vast, vast majority of people never get it at all is simply false. Fact checks do not bear counterargument in a healthy discussion unless the fact check itself is lie.

[0]https://news.gallup.com/poll/269138/americans-delaying-medic... (2019)

And that number is decreasing under the current administration while the rate of medical bankruptcy (even for those with insurance) is also increasing.

Insurance != Healthcare or the financial capacity to see a doctor.

I have excellent insurance through my employer and still pay several hundred a month to cover my and my partners medical needs, on top of the insurance premiums in my paycheck. We are extremely lucky to be able to afford that but it's still nearly $500 a month that could be going to savings, retirement, a safer car, or more. Instead we spend about $6k a year to an inefficient system that doesn't produce better outcomes than universal systems like in Canada.

"Having insurance" != having good insurance that doesn't have eye-watering co-pays and excesses.

If your out of pocket excess is $1000 and you need $900 of treatment, but you also need to make rent, buy gas, feed your family ... well, you don't get the treatment (or you do, can't pay, and are made bankrupt). I think you might live in a slight bubble.

out of pocket limit to $1000 is still a very good plan, out of pocket limits on the plans most people have (usually termed "bronze plans") is well north of $5000

Whereas my yearly out of pocket on my top up private plan in the UK is £100, the entire plan (me + family) costs the company £1600.

Yes, I pay a lot more tax, but then again, public transport, healthcare free at the point of need etc. etc. are worth it to me.

"Sub-par" in this context meaning significantly higher chance of dying.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/sep/12/hospital-dea...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com