- Joined
- Mar 27, 2014
- Messages
- 63,340
- Reaction score
- 33,260
- Location
- Tennessee
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
That depends entirely on how it's set up. In state-run systems, for example, you tend to get restriction of supply, with exchange driven by perverse incentives. Government workers and agencies have no particular reason to value customer service, and so often that is neglected in favor of the things they do have incentives to value.
But most healthcare in single payer systems isn't delivered by government workers - they're private, like here under Medicare, and they care about customer service.
I spent several months unemployed in 2013, with a wife and three small children (including an infant). It was a humbling, stressful, experience that I wouldn't recommend to anyone. My option was pretty simple - once I hit the point at which my old insurance no longer covered me, I swallowed my pride, and put in for Medicaid, so that my kids would at least have something (though Medicaid kinda sucks). Fortunately, I got a job shortly thereafter, and could drop it. But that's the option. If you lose your job, you can go on Medicaid, and keep coverage.
Sheesh, CPWILL: "No, my preference requires that adults demonstrate personal responsibility, or face the consequences therein. Children remain eligible for CHIP, Medicaid, etc."
Where in your preference is the proviso, "but guys like me who lose their job can transition within 90 days to Medicaid?" And in Tennessee, if you're a single male, you can't get Medicaid - period under any kind of normal circumstance - poor is NOT sufficient. So you stated a preference, then assume into it an exemption that covers your situation, but don't recognize that your preference would leave you f'd. Only your kids would keep coverage.
what I mean by "free ride the system" is "attempt to live at the expense of others by not paying premiums, but still seeking the benefits of coverage."
Well, how exactly do we recognize when someone is simply broke, like you were, or just free riding?
Unless you have an ACTUAL mandate (tied to things like jail time, or fines in the tens of thousands of dollars), you can't have guaranteed issue and community rating without creating a tragedy of the commons and adverse selection, because people will rationally follow their incentives, and all attempt to live at the expense of each other.
Somehow the entire industrialized world handles it and I don't hear of people going to jail or getting fined 10s of thousands. They are all just....covered.
inches bridge of nose: I am 34 this year. I have been above average income precisely three tax years. I've been that waiter.
But how does that waiter get insurance? It's missing from your stated preferences.
I have no idea why liberals have this weird, compulsive, need to depend on an image of people who disagree with their methods doing so because they have active antipathy/disgust towards others.
I don't think you do have antipathy or disgust, but the policies you apparently support would leave them screwed because they don't get insurance at work and cannot afford it on their low pay. So the effect is the same, even if you claim empathy.
"Sure, and the reason you want single-payer is because you DON"T CARE if our elderly suffer, if our cancer patients die. Your preference is **** YOU, SICK PEOPLE, STAY ON WAITING LISTS UNTIL YOU ****ING DIE, BECAUSE YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE GOTTEN ****ING SICK."
The difference is that doesn't happen in the rest of the world, cancer patients in France and Germany get treated as quickly as we do. But in fact in this country, millions of people are basically f'd when it comes to access to healthcare. And if you oppose efforts to help them, then what do you suggest they do? Charity was your option, but even you recognize that isn't a good answer because when you were uninsured, YOU went on Medicaid.
So you support Medicaid expansion and the ACA level subsidies? Or not? You seem to want it both ways.