Skip Navigation

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context
37 comments

  • Before the greedy consolidated healthcare into mega-organizations and privatized hospitals, most hospitals were run by charities, religious organizations, and local governments (usually counties). People paid cash for routine healthcare, which kept prices low, and had major medical insurance for major expenses. People had control over their healthcare.

    The system was not perfect, but it was a lot better than what we have today. And we can do a lot of things to make such a system better, such as requiring hospitals to provide indigent care to those who cannot afford to pay (i.e. free or reduced cost healthcare) in exchange for not paying taxes. If they chose not to provide indigent care, then they are taxed, and that tax money is used to fund government-run hospitals and clinics.

    You don't have to centralize healthcare to provide universal healthcare. There are a number of ways to do it.

    • You don’t have to centralize healthcare to provide universal healthcare. There are a number of ways to do it.

      Well let me know when you accomplish that. Technically, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from doing it right now.

      • Yes, we already have that in many major counties in Texas, and it seems to be working very well. We provide universal healthcare, unlike the rest of the country, and yet taxes are still low, and people have a choice of providers.

        I would still make some recommendations that would make it better. Now we just need to refine and duplicate the model nationwide.

        • Texas does not have universal healthcare. It does however have the second highest maternal mortality rate in the developed world. Not just the US.

          • I never said Texas has universal health care. I said that certain counties in the state have universal health care.

            • That's still incorrect. UHC isn't just subsidized, it's free at point of sale. There are no counties in the US that offer this. There are no organizations in the US that offer this.

              • With Harris Health, if you qualify for free healthcare, you get a "gold card" that gives you free healthcare. You have to qualify based on your household income and household size. Others are provided services based on a sliding scale based on their income.

                And there is no such thing is free healthcare. You either pay for it in advance via taxes or insurance premiums, or you pay at the time of service. It is not free, and will never be free.

                Systems can be made to be more efficient and more affordable, but they will never be free since it takes resources and labor to run a healthcare system.

                • ...no shit, I specifically said free at point of sale to not confuse you and trigger this skippable npc dialogue.

                  What you described is Medicaid. Something that is available everywhere in the US, and is not in anyway related to UHC.

                  Free at point of sale is just that. All developed countries have this, many developing countries have it.

                  You get treatment. At some point your id is found or you give them it. You walk out and never worry about payment.

                  Just like you don't pay to drive on roads in a civilized society, or pay to use a library, or pay for a child's education.

                  Yes, it's funded by taxes, but you don't pay, since that would be inefficient and too expensive.

                  UHC is more efficient because it is centralized and equal. You don't have to waste trillions on figuring out how much someone makes or if they're a gold member of this or that company. You don't need an army of useless admins making up a billion billing codes so some company can try their hardest not to pay what they've been paid to pay.

                  It is just: you pay taxes. If you need it you get healthcare. You don't ever "qualify," there are no means tests, there is no different treatment based on how well off you are, you just get healthcare.

                  • We see how that works. Governments take 40% or more of your income, or insurance companies have outrageous rates. And then the bureaucrats keep part of your money for themselves, and then tell you whether you get healthcare or not by restricting use to the money you paid them. Why should I pay for government administrators to have huge salaries just to manage the money I gave them?

                    I would rather pay for a doctor's visit out of pocket with cash, and earn interest or invest the money that would otherwise go towards taxes or insurance fees in my own health savings account.

                    Most people can afford routine healthcare costs. It is the major medical that is the problem. For that, you need something like insurance, either run by the government, a cooperative, or a private company. You also pay people enough where they can put money away into a health saving account and retirement account. So wages would need to rise for that. And you need a safety net for people who cannot afford insurance, funded by taxpayers and charities. You don't have to centralize things to do any of that.

                    Routine healthcare should never be free, except for those in poverty. It just leads to inflation and rationing of routine healthcare.

                    • 25 years ago, health care used to be more affordable. That was before the insurance companies paid for everything, and before hospitals were privatized and consolidated. Doctors could not charge a lot because people paid cash, and people would choose doctors with affordable rates. But now with copays, people think that the doctor costs $30. So the doctors charge hundreds of dollars to the insurance companies, knowing that if the patients paid cash themselves, they would refuse to pay such high charges. These higher fees just get passed back to the patient in the form of higher insurance premiums. So insurance is inflationary. The cost of healthcare is pushed up.

                      Government insurance tries to handle this by putting caps on what providers can charge, but you still have the problem of rationing of healthcare based on available funds, and it also gives bureaucrats control over your healthcare. It has all of the same problems as private health insurance, except it is run by the government. And if it is centralized, you can't go anywhere else for a second opinion. If they say no, you are screwed. So that is not ideal either.

                      If you abolish all private healthcare, then you only have government clinics, and the problem with that is that they can deny you care if they don't like you (a political dissident) or if they don't have the budget to pay for everyone's care.

                      Instead of any of those, you need some kind of system that is not inflationary, is affordable, and that gives people choices in their care. If one provider says no, they can go to another. The current system is really bad, but most of the alternatives that people suggest are just as bad or worse. If you want a better system, it must include patient choice.

                • I take that back. There is on form of free healthcare for the patient, and that is provided by charities and religious organizations who accept donations. Then, and only then, does the patient not pay. Because if it is run by the government, the patient pays direct or indirect taxes to pay for the healthcare.

        • I tried searching it and couldn't find a single thing except for some articles talking about 1332 waivers from the Affordable Care Act, which is very much centralized.

37 comments