the really bad thing happens and you are looking at financial ruin. Without insurance you don't get those insurance negotiated rates on service. You may also find yourself unable to access care you would need such as rehab. Wish you all the best but a bad mammogram taught me the importance of insurance. My radiation therapy would have cost me $48,000 if I hadn't had insurance.

Don't know how one forces people to eat better, exercise, avoid risky behavior (including guns), etc. Wish there were an acceptable way. Currently, Medicaid kind of takes the approach that if you get really sick, and have some assets, Medicaid will cover you, but take those assets when one passes on.


But, while I hear what you are saying, I think it is to society's detriment when someone -- who can apparently afford health insurance -- chooses to save the money and pass the potential risk of an accident, cancer, stroke, etc., onto the rest of society.

If you do...

Over 37,000 people die in road crashes each year. An additional 2.35 million are injured or disabled.

A healthy lifestyle is great until some drunk asshole or texting teen mangles you.

But according to the odds I'll win by not getting health insurance. Isn't life just one big game of odds? You can only do your best to stack the deck in your favor. Why do something which statistically will leave me worse off? And if somebody injures me, won't it be THEIR insurance paying for it?

assuming no accidents.

a lot of folks are really healthy until they are not....gamble in vegas

All single-payor countries ration care in some form... that side of "cost savings" is never talked about from single payor proponents.

I also support Euthanasia.

So much is being spent in vain just to prolong the lives of terminally ill people a few more weeks/months. Just let them go with a little dignity if they want. We treat our terminally ill worse than our pets FFS!

I fear a lot of people don't understand we already ration care. It's rationed on ability to pay.

say No in other circumstances when we insure everyone at almost 100%.

if we transferred the money we are already paying to a single care system I doubt the rationing would need to be any worse than it is today.

You won't get much credit for your "healthy lifestyle" when you get diagnosed with ALS, or a brain tumor. More bad news, working out every day and eating right won't keep you from being severely burned in a fire or hit by a bus.

I have never been obese, never had hypertension or high cholesterol. No risk factors. I lead a healthy, active lifestyle. I had a fluke heart attack a few years ago. My hospital bill alone was over $35,000. The physicians' care was more thousands. Fortunately I have decent health insurance. It cost me thousands in co-pays regardless.

nt

The universal participation structure is justifiable when evaluated as a long term investment in healthcare rather than as an annual investment.

Over time, those in the bottom 50% (expenditure) will move into the top 50%...

some will Transition gradually ... some abruptly
And with no designated minimum/maximum time period spent in the bottom 50%

Many people, once in the top 50%, will migrate annually from one top 50 percentage category to another-- some years requiring greater expenditures than others....

If insurance 'benefits' are viewed as a return on a long term investment....then it becomes a given that the investment will produce a return...

Theoretically, the long term ROI will be greater in a universal system because the premiums are designed to distribute the weight of the risk ...

Which is different than the common misconception that it shifts the weight of the risk created by the top 50% onto the bottom 50%...
since in the long term virtually all participants will have been part of both the top & bottom...


Having said that....
the only way any insurance structure is worthwhile is if all participants can actually afford the monthly premiums...

So while I understand and embrace the long term investment philosophy of universal participation..
I, currently, have to make a choice whether to invest my available funds in healthcare insurance or in a housing & education combo ...
Since I only have sufficient $$ available for investment in one or the other... not both...

As it stands, the housing & education combo is a higher priority ....

You don't want to pay in to the system because others benefit who are less fortunate than you. Yet you will get cared for in the ER when you have an auto accident or catch a deadly illness or when you get cancer and can't work Medicaid will be there for you.

Just a nit pick on my part. The subsidies, affordability, etc. are based on non-smoking premiums. The smoking surcharge is significant at up to 50%.

that my claims exceeded the deductible. I never resented the fact that my premiums were paying for other people's health care because eventually no matter how healthy your lifestyle you will need insurance. Now I have preexisting conditions despite leading a VERY healthy lifestyle.

That whole mentality of "why should I pay for X when I don't use it" can be extended to a whole list of other things that a civil society depends upon. It is the price of civilization pure and simple. Paying for medical research, libraries, environmental protection, infrastructure, education, care for the elderly and disabled, etc. are part of the social contract.

and not paying for the most expensive losses because they cost too much.
Ridiculous reasoning to think insurance is "simply not a sustainable model." Tell that to my car.