Hacker News Reader

Comment by JumpCrisscross | Hacker News Reader

> If someone can't pay it is still covered by all the other people paying. That doesn't mean the rich are subsidizing us.

That’s exactly what it means. The person who couldn’t pay has their costs subsidised by those who do. If nobody in the system pays more than they use, and anyone uses more than they pay, the system tends de-stabilises.

View on HN

Walked into doctor for a weekly shot. That’ll be $60.00 copay. Balance billed to insurance.

Me: how much without insurance? $15 dollars out the door.

Okay...

Few years later. I need an MRI. I call and ask how much. 750 dollar with insurance. (Deductible) Or $500 without insurance.

I pay 1300 a month, and it’s often still cheaper to not use it.

We need to change the questions that are asked.

  Not just who will pay for it.   Because the same procedure at the same location can have drastically different costs depending on who is paying

It’s not ‘the rich’ paying in that case. It’s ‘the majority’.

If it's paid for by income tax, people with high income will pay proportionately more. High income people tend to be rich.

But those with high income are very outnumbered. Most of people are not rich and most of the taxes come from them. You get way more money from taxing 20% all working class families than from taxing 50% the wealthiest ones.

My point is, healthcare is being funded by everybody who works (also everybody who consumes, as you have to pay VAT) not only the rich.

I get your point but people with high income are paying proportionately more than people with lower income. In some sense this is a subsidy.

This becomes even more pronounced if you take into account who is using the health care system as low income tends to be tied with bad health (diabetes, smoking related issues, hard physical labour, etc).

Note that I'm not saying this is wrong. Broadest shoulders should bear the largest burdens.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com