Hacker News Reader

Comment by duckMuppet | Hacker News Reader

It sounds great until the govt decides you aren't viable, or you're to old or young to be worth financials strain put upon the system.

Perhaps you're of the wrong political, religious or cultural persuasion and a bureaucrat determines that you aren't selected for treatment.

Ultimately, the people get what they deserve i suppose.

View on HN

> "It sounds great until the govt decides you aren't viable, or you're to old or young to be worth financials strain put upon the system."

I think you mean "insurance company", not "govt", there. Private insurers in the US have a history of doing stuff like this. Government-run health insurance systems tend to cover everybody with a lot less red tape than this.

Is there proof that something like this actually happens in countries with universal healthcare?

Is there proof it is actually worse than the current US system, where people with preexisting conditions or other risk factors are routinely denied coverage?

Otherwise, this is just plain FUD.

There will always be rationing. The system now masks the rationing by creating incomplete networks of providers. People then pretend that we have unlimited choice with no rationing.

Of course, we could always have nurses and PAs do more surgeries. Personally, i like the idea of a Bernie bro telling someone that it isn't worth trying to save their kid, it just might help them let go.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/02/24/nurses-carry-sur...

...So we let private for profit companies decide instead. And also have large competing bureaucracies that have incomplete networks of providers cobble together care.

This comments says so much about you, and how you would love to withhold healthcare from ''those people''. Your comment says nothing about having universal healthcare.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com