Thread: Seriousness US Health Care Plan
View Single Post
Old 03-24-2010, 07:44 PM   #5
Nakor
Addict
Nakor ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Nakor ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Nakor ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Nakor ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Nakor ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Nakor ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Nakor ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Nakor ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Nakor ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Nakor ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Nakor ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Nakor's Avatar
 
Posts: 214
Karma: 511602
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: BC, Canada
Device: Aluratek Libre
This one? I have no idea. It's so convoluted I can't tell one way or the other lol. I mean a good health care plan can do so. I have no idea if this one can or not.

As for how, the US actually already spends a lot more per capita on health care under the old system than many countries with universal health care pay under theirs'. One large part of the reason is the government often ends up footing the bill for anyone who can't pay for themselves ('uncompensated care' which is usually paid for by various levels of government), but isn't taking in any income to counteract that; in short, having uninsured people in the country can get expensive. In 2006, per-capita spending for health care in Canada was US$3,678; in the U.S., US$6,714. (Both countries have seen these costs rise a fair bit since then, as a note.) The high price is because emergency visits are pretty much never denied, and when a patient can't afford to pay for them, it's the government that foots the bill.

It's actually easier to think of it from this perspective though. If Person A has health care, they pay $57 per month (going by the cost of BC MSP, the equivalent of 'public option' here in BC), and when suddenly they need a $5,000 (or whatever) emergency operation, it's covered. In the long haul, it generally saves them money. Well, the government is in the position of covering anyone who can't (or won't) cover or pay for themselves, only instead of footing the lower $x per month, they're currently footing the $5,000 cost when someone can't pay for their own emergency procedure. So in effect, it's almost akin to the government buying health insurance against people they would have been responsible for anyway.

That's obviously a rather roundabout metaphor and not 100% accurate, but hopefully it makes sense of why the government would consider a system where health insurance is mandatory and then offer to subsidize coverage to those who cannot afford it themselves. That subsidization costs far less than the bill that comes to the government's door when an emergency procedure goes unpaid for.

Short version: Mandating insurance and paying for the people who can't afford it costs a lot less than paying for uncompensated care occurring due to a lack of insurance (as long as the health care plan is done right, that is, which I agree is in question).

On the up side, the plan is going to take effect very slowly, so there's lots of time for them to fix it. Perhaps now that there's something in place the conservatives and liberals can mesh ideas; there's been a lot of head-butting amongst politicians and it's not really doing either side a lot of good.
Nakor is offline   Reply With Quote