Hacker News Reader

Comment by fennecfoxen | Hacker News Reader

That would be a fairer dig if:

* he were free to actually purchase catastrophic health care coverage instead of the bureaucratic "minimum" politically-acceptable coverage

* he was free to pay for said insurance at a rate approximating his actual risk, i.e. he's actually buying insurance, not something that's insurance plus a government-mandated wealth-transfer mechanism from the young and healthy to the elderly and infirm

But even so, who's to say that people shouldn't be allowed to take risks with their own life and limb? Meh.

View on HN

> But even so, who's to say that people shouldn't be allowed to take risks with their own life and limb? Meh.

That would be fair if he signed a waiver that stated he denied any care if they drop him off in the emergency room. If he's in an accident and unconscious, they are going to take him to the hospital where he'll be treating insurance or not. Without insurance that cost will more likely than not just be spread around.

... and thank you for demonstrating exactly who's-to-say.

Just because I don't have insurance doesn't mean I can't/won't pay for emergency care.

Then the government should require you to post a bond for a reasonable amount to cover that eventuality. I don't think most people have over 100k sitting around.

Many young people think it isn't a big deal, they'll just pay if something happens. Except when it does and now they owe over 100k in bills. Oh, and at the same time they are sick or injured. Now they can't pay, so everyone else does.

Just because _you_ can or can't do something doesn't mean that on aggregate people can or can't. Society must use the situation as a whole. On the whole, many people can't pay and the costs have increased for everyone else.

"wealth-transfer mechanism from the young and healthy to the elderly and infirm"

What do you think insurance is? Everyone pays, only some people actually use it. If you get hit by a bus the day after you get insurance and need $2 million in surgery and therapy, the insurance company pays for that. And now, thanks to Obamacare, they can't just drop you.

And others have addressed the part about risking your own life. In theory, yes, that's fine, except hospitals are legally required to treat everyone regardless of insurance. So the rest of us are paying for it one way or another. This just forces the freeloaders to pay up.

Oh yeah, and it also keeps people from being dumb about not paying for insurance when most of the time it's a good idea, financially.

Right, so, insurance is not a wealth transfer mechanism. It's a risk-pooling mechanism.

We know that driving a car is risky and we could crash, and it could cost us lots of money, but on average the risk is acceptable. Instead of casting our financial fortunes to the fates like that, we pay the average risk (actuaries ho) and a few percent to make it worth the insurers' time, and we have restructured our risk exposure: we are guaranteed a certain financial impact, but it's limited, instead of being unlimited.

BUT IF YOU'RE A CRAZY MANIAC driving your new BMW down the freeway at 120mph as a matter of routine and racking up speeding tickets left and right, you end up paying more, because your behavior is risky. If you're a super-safe driver with a cheap car, you end up paying less; you don't subsidize the maniac's premiums -- not insofar as the insurance company can help it, anyway.

Contrast with Obamacare, where young healthy people end up paying more, in order to subsidize the elderly and others at risk of health conditions. That's the wealth transfer. You can also recognize it because without governmental regulation to that effect, it wouldn't be happening.

What a devastating criticism. You opened my eyes.

Those old people should have paid for the undercoating

If you want to give more money to old people for their healthcare, that is a legitimate aim, and it would be better if we were to talk about it as an aim per se... and maybe get the money by taxing healthcare for young people (which is very regressive and quite painful for many people who are not rich young computer programmers.)

It's almost as if we should tax people proportional to their ability to pay.

A person will be free to purchase plans that consist of catastrophic insurance, plus a small amount of preventative care: http://health.usnews.com/health-news/health-insurance/articl...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com