Greenbeard
Gold Member
Forget deductibles. What I'm talking about is, you break your arm, you go get it fixed, you pay the doctor for fixing your arm. Done. No dealing with co-pays, no deductibles, no insurance.
What happened to "My vision is to address the cost of services so that insurance is only used for the most catastrophic of issues"? The implication there is that there is a line below which the individual pays, and above which additional costs are borne by an insurer (i.e. a deductible).
Car mechanics don't run credit checks for people that need their cars fixed so I think you're making something out of nothing there.
If you're wondering why I explicitly included a link to a news article explaining "Hospitals often use these services when patients are uninsured or have big out-of-pocket costs despite having health insurance," it's because I thought you might not be aware that hospitals already do this with people who have to pay in the manner you're describing. Well, and also because I hoped you would click it.
What's your point? Of course health care costs are burdensome.
My point was twofold: 1) costs and expenditures are highly concentrated, they're not distributed uniformly over the population, and 2) among those that are consuming the most health resources (i.e. are responsible for a disproportionate share of our national spending), the costs of their care are directly affecting them. Their problem can't be summed up simply as overspending due to insulation on their part from the costs of their conditions/treatment.
This is what I meant by you really think. And we can't solve this problem if you don't admit it. That problem is a lot of people, including you, want to treat the service of health care like it is different than any other service that someone may need.
Health care is different from most other services in many respects. If you're going to try and lecture others about economics, at least familiarize yourself with some of the classics in the field; you can start with Arrow's Uncertainty and the Welfare Economics of Medical Care.
Paying for emergency car repairs is burdensome and expensive too. Does that mean I should expect that I don't have to pay my mechanic? Of course not.
As is generally the case in these threads, I don't know what it is you're arguing against--you seem to be operating from a very specific conception of how a single-payer system must work that seems to color every statement you make.
That also defies basic economic logic. You think when costs more directly affect the consumer they don't figure out what a necessary expenditure and what isn't?
The behavioral economics at play here--particularly on the demand side--is significantly more complex than you're letting on.