Ruminator, I won’t spend much more energy banging my head against this particular brick wall but it must be noted that despite your smugness that some are just not understanding your answers it seems to some of the rest of us that you are the one who just isn’t understanding some very basic concepts.
You seem to have fixated on a very particular hypothetical: an intervention is possible within the cost of annual premium that would be life-saving and for which a payor will not pay and for which an individual can only afford by going without paying for coverage for any other healthcare needs. It is an absurd hypothetical that brings no light to this discussion.
You mean like the way local government forces you to pay for their school system even if you don’t have kids or your kids go to a private school? Why is there not an outcry about that?
Perhaps it’s an intervention (drug) that simply makes quality of life more comfortable but does not extend the years of that life.
It seems like you think there are absolutely zero reasons for consumers to retain a choice with the $$$ paid to premiums and the arrogance of that judgment is what sounds absurd. And adding the logical error of talking about “effectiveness” of the alternative treatment isn’t shedding light on this discussion. That’s a separate tangent.
I’m not against UHC but I think it’s wrong to claim that UHC has the same restrictions on choice as private insurance.
A couple of sites of about people in countries with UHC who have experienced what you’re describing? That would be nice.
Also, give me your honest opinion. Your concern about people not being able to drop their coverage is a con against UHC. OK, under out present system if you want good health coverage you need to have a full time job. If you’re part time or self-employed you have to pay hundreds of dollars out of pocket, and even then if you have a preexisting health condition you’re denied coverage. These are two cons against the current system. Which is worse?
Right now I believe that our current system is worse because there’s a greater number of people who can’t afford or who are denied health care than there would be people who couldn’t drop it if it was mandatory.
And sometimes that’s it, you don’t have a long run left to worry about. People battling unsuccessfully for year with cancer run out of options. People with massive brain trauma that are in a persistent vegetative state. There is a very real and very practical decision that has to be made to stop treatment. People die, that’s what we do, and dumping thousands of dollars down the drain on life support systems won’t change that. I am not advocating that the government should decide, nor am I saying that a private company should decide. Ultimately there are two people, the doctor and the next of kin (power of attorney, or patient).
Or maybe he bleeds out before tying off the arteries. Or maybe he bleeds out trying to walk back to rescue. Or maybe his infected stump becomes septic and kills him. This is not the example you want to use. He clearly was not thinking about the “short term” realities of his situation, only long term survival at any cost.