He might have experienced our healthcare. Even if he had insurance, our system is a clusterfuck that makes everyone worse upon contact.
Or, he might be older than 30 and therefore not willing to deal with the puny two-week vacation allotment that is still socially acceptable from US employers.
Or, he might have children who will have to be educated someday, and see that a system that combines astronomical tuition plus fickle nonacademic factors in admissions ("extracurricular" criteria designed to give the privileged a huge advantage) is not good for their future.
Or, he might have lived in the Red States and be gay. Or, pardon the "he", she might be a woman. Or transgender.
Are you seriously saying that life in the US is terrible if you're a woman? Do I understand that correctly? Has HN really reached that level of boneheadedness?
No, that last paragraph is clearly a list of circumstances which would cause life in the US to be bad. Depending on how you apply "red states", he may only mean that being a woman in a "red state" is bad. Either way, it's idiotic.
> He might have experienced our healthcare. Even if he had insurance, our system is a clusterfuck that makes everyone worse upon contact.
I'm not disagreeing with you I just need help understanding. I get a job. My job offers health insurance coverage, which most do now. I pay a small fee (<$200) per month to get the coverage. If I get hurt I go to a doctor and the insurance covers the costs in full, so long as they accept that insurance. How is this not ideal? What would be better for the tax payer?
> Or, he might be older than 30 and therefore not willing to deal with the puny two-week vacation allotment that is still socially acceptable from US employers.
Outside of tech. I've found within the industry most employers have a flexible vacation policy.
> Or, he might have children who will have to be educated someday, and see that a system that combines astronomical tuition plus fickle nonacademic factors in admissions ("extracurricular" criteria designed to give the privileged a huge advantage) is not good for their future.
Can't argue with this one. I wholeheartedly agree.
> Or, he might have lived in the Red States and be gay. Or, pardon the "he", she might be a woman. Or transgender.
Eh. I'd say this is more based on location within a state. Go to Austin Texas and you'll have a better time than many other states that are "blue".
"I get a job. My job offers health insurance coverage, which most do now. I pay a small fee (<$200) per month to get the coverage. If I get hurt I go to a doctor and the insurance covers the costs in full, so long as they accept that insurance. How is this not ideal? What would be better for the tax payer?"
How about just being able to pay that 'small fee' without having it tied to an 'employer'? The 'employer' is normally paying a lot more than your share, so this 'benefit' just means craploads more money going to the insurance company instead of your pocket to make your own decisions with.
"Covers the cost in full"? Really? Rarely, unless it's something extremely basic, and you've got some excellent plan with an extremely low deductible. Which it sounds like you might - for that $200 you're paying, the employer is probably kicking in another $600+ (wild estimate based on past experience and discussions with colleagues).
Being able to have basic medical necessities provided to you should not be dependent on whether you're 'employable' (and 'employed') at any particular moment in time.
"Employer-provided" health insurance is one of the worst aspects of the mess that is healthcare in the US.
For people who don't think $200 every month is "a small fee". Folks on minimum wage might not agree with you on 'small', particularly if they're part-time. For people who don't have a job. For when your healthcare provider hasn't done a deal with your insurance. For having to do the paperwork in the first place.
David Sedaris talks about getting medical care while living in France. He tried to pay for it, and got "Oh, fix us up next time". On insisting, he got "oh, I suppose you could pay, if you really want to".
What would be better for the tax payer?
It's been pretty conclusively demonstrated that the US system is ridiculously expensive for the taxpayer with poor outcomes for society as a whole, compared to other systems.
Edit: I've never figured out how to do dot points on HN...
It is en vogue to consider U.S. health care sub-par. Americans are less healthy than other countries but it's not because we don't spend enough on care. It's because we depend too much on health insurance to make us healthy.
To me if health care is broken in the U.S., it is broken for two reasons: 1. medical coverage is tied to employment and 2. economic considerations are removed from the equation by insurance companies.
My two fixes to U.S. health care would be to allow (through de-regulation or regulation, whichever it requires) allow consumers to shop for healthcare based on their own desires for coverage (extreme catastrophic coverage, e.g. only cover procedures over $50K, all the way down to full coverage of toe nail clipping and nose wiping) without ties to their employer. This fix would remove the pre-existing condition problem. It is one solution the new healthcare exchanges attempt to provide.
To fix the second problem, I think health insurance companies and medical facilities should be required to show their prices for all treatments and procedures. If my health insurance will pay up to $5K for me to have my appendix removed and there is a doctor that I trust who will remove it for $250.00, I should be able to choose that doctor and my insurance premiums should reflect the choices that I make with my coverage.
If health care were handled like this, people could save thousands of dollars on their health coverage by making responsible decisions about what types of coverage to get and how much to spend on treatment. The money saved could be used to pay for things that are not required or to save for other lifestyle choices.
I'm not disagreeing with you I just need help understanding. I get a job. My job offers health insurance coverage, which most do now. I pay a small fee (<$200) per month to get the coverage. If I get hurt I go to a doctor and the insurance covers the costs in full, so long as they accept that insurance. How is this not ideal? What would be better for the tax payer?
Red pill alert.
Your doctor accepting insurance is not guaranteed, or even likely, these days. As insurance companies become more aggressive against doctors, an increasing number are either deciding not to put up with that bullshit at all (in New York, half the doctors don't take insurance at all because there are enough richies) or to only accept a couple of plans (which you won't get, unless your company is union and the union does a hell of a job). Companies often buy cheapskate insurance where the network is thin, and you may need a specialist but be unable to get one (in network) for several months, or have to drive 100 miles. In an emergency, you pay a lot out of pocket. Possibly $20,000+. That's with insurance.
Most plans also have high deductibles ($2000+) these days, which means that the first $2000 of expenses you will pay. There's typically an exemption for an annual physical and for routine stuff, but getting seriously sick is beyond what most Americans can afford.
Oh, and if you have to buy individual insurance (your employer isn't big enough to get a group plan) then you will be paying a hell of a lot more than $200 per month for it. If you've ever had a serious illness, make it $2,500 per month. Cancer survivors are uninsurable if seeking individual plans (chemotherapy is carcinogenic, believe it or not). Diabetics are fucked.
Finally, if you deal with anxiety or depression or panic attacks (hey, it happens) you will get a lot of pushback from health insurance, even on unrelated claims, because statistically people with MH issues (especially depression) are more likely to just give up and eat losses, or fuck up on paperwork and eat losses, on claims that the insurer should technically pay.
American health insurance is, with no exaggeration, a 9/11 every 24 days. 45,000 per year. Many of those have insurance.
Or, he might be older than 30 and therefore not willing to deal with the puny two-week vacation allotment that is still socially acceptable from US employers.
Or, he might have children who will have to be educated someday, and see that a system that combines astronomical tuition plus fickle nonacademic factors in admissions ("extracurricular" criteria designed to give the privileged a huge advantage) is not good for their future.
Or, he might have lived in the Red States and be gay. Or, pardon the "he", she might be a woman. Or transgender.