Hacker News Reader

Comment by chuckgreenman | Hacker News Reader

Private care is already rationed based on your ability to pay so these arguments really don't hold water at all.

The insurance system is already bureaucratic as all get out. Creating one payer would actually streamline the experience.

The government has a monopoly on the national defense as well, a good that we all need. That works. Why wouldn't health care be the same.

Canadians and British folks seem pretty happy with their nationalized health care.

View on HN

Last time I was dealing with a hospital bill, they told me not to worry because it usually doesn't get resolved until the hospital and insurance company start threatening to sue eachother about it. 8 months after the procedure, my bill was resolved.

Sounds pretty efficient to me!

Socialized insurance isn't just my ability to pay, it is the willingness of everyone else to pay. If you need expensive treatment and have money this is an important distinction. With multiple players you in theory have the ability to decide if you want to be in the cheap payout pool that lets you die of concern, or the more expensive pool that covers chemo that can add years of life.

Of course what we have now with employers sponsored plans is the worst of both...

Sorry if I don't have much sympathy for already wealthy people not wanting to give others the standard of care they already have access to.

So you are willing to die of something easily treatable for $100,000 because there exist people in the world who can't afford treatment?

This assumes that you have $100,000 to treat it. The vast majority of people couldn't come up with that kind of money or talk an institution into lending it to them.

If you do have the money you can get your own supplementary health insurance that goes above and beyond. (This is common in Canada, not sure about England though.)

This is a false dichotomy. Setting aside the fact that the vast majority of Americans can't come up with $500 let alone $100,000 in the event of an emergency, socialized programs and the public purse ensure that care is made available to those in need in spite of the fact it's expensive. In fact, they can often negotiate it down. Further, if you can come up with $100K you can easily go to a private clinic or truthfully, another country where your money would go much, much, much further.

Everything bought and sold privately is rationed based on your ability to pay, including such vital resources as food, shelter, transportation, clothing, and higher education, so why is medical care to be treated so differently? If we agree that because medical treatment must be rationed because it is a finite resources, the debate is really comes down to who decides how this rationing is done and by whom.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com