1304
we're a nation of middlemen (lemmy.ml)
submitted 9 months ago by to c/microblogmemes@lemmy.world
132 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 9 months ago (3 children)

Well, most insurance is only for emergencies, and it is priced accordingly. For example, when I drove a car, I didn't have to deal with my auto insurance plan at all while getting gas or normal maintenance. However, when I got into a few bad accidents, the car insurance was vital for continuing to have a car, and it paid towards helping me get it fixed. Car insurance is insurance against something catastrophic happening to a vital part of life in most of America, not something to use everyday, and is priced accordingly.

Health insurance here is very different from car insurance. Rather than an emergency contingency, health insurance is woven into most healthcare purchases in the U.S. Accordingly, it is very expensive, limiting, and inefficient. Due to the dynamics of the system it creates, Americans must usually pay through the nose for even everyday healthcare without insurance.

If health insurance was operated more like car insurance, except of course that a human life should never be "totaled out," the system would eventually adjust and normalize.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago* (2 children)

    Are you suggesting routine visits not be covered? That's how it reads... Do we think less (because it costs) basic preventative care and planning will lead to less catastrophic/etc issues? Or by not covering it are we expecting "competition" to lower the price?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Yes, that's what I'm suggesting. Keep in mind that in most other countries where insurance has less of a role, these are vastly cheaper than they are here. I expect more people will ultimately go then, especially the uninsured, because prices would no longer be artificially inflated by bureaucracy and for the purposes of negotiation with insurance.

    The hard problem, the way I see it, would be taking us from here to there with minimal suffering during such a transition.

    We could also go the opposite direction towards single-payer healthcare. That also can be more efficient than what we have if politicians don't sabotage it, but I am concerned that here, they will, and we'll end up with something like the U.K. NHS. Therefore, for the U.S. specifically, I don't see this as a good option due to instability.

    What we have now is a compromise that works for nobody.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago

    I get what you’re saying and completely agree the current situation works for no one, but covering routine care is important. Sure, people probably could pay for routine care directly and it would be cheaper but all too many won’t. When it turns into a serious problem that could have been prevented, it’s not just their health affected but cost to the insurer and employer.

    I’m pretty sure that 100% coverage of routine care has been proven cheaper than letting the person decide

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent