He may or may not come back with some cites but I’m curious of your skepticism, what do you think happens to the uninsured when they need medical attention?
I suppose letting people die in the street could be cheaper but I’d like to see someone put forth a cost analysis involving the removal of the bodies then we can really get down to the moral cost to our country.
I would guess it varies from person to person and situation to situation. Perhaps a combination of foregoing attention; going to free clinics; paying out of pocket; and probably other stuff.
If you opt out, it’s the same. If people want to repeal Obamacare, why would it bother them to have the status quo?
Well, one way to address this claim would be to examine the rate of uninsured peoples vs. percent of GDP spent on health care costs.
Here is an examination of spending: Snapshots: Health Care Spending in the United States & Selected OECD Countries | KFF
The US is well above the line plotting per capita health-care expenditures vs. per-capita GDP. One can also clearly see that our spending is growing at a more rapid pace that the other countries. We are well out in front on health-care expenditures as a share of GDP.
From what I can tell every other country on that list has universal coverage, and thus nominal rates of uninsured. If you can cite a first-world country with lower expenditures and higher rates of uninsured that would be a contrary data point.
I would say that there are too many other variables in play to infer anything from your examples. Besides, it looks like the countries were cherry picked. Where’s South Africa in that chart?
From what I’ve seen, they sometimes go to free clinics, but often can’t afford meds and forgo necessary treatment until they have no choice but go to the ER. They get stabilized and then they leave. Then they come back.
Are you aware that 55% of emergency-room care goes uncompensated? How could a hospital run without passing those costs on to those that do pay?
Certainly true. But in the absence of other evidence it does tell us something, no?
South Africa is not on the list because they are not an OECD nation. However, to add another data point, South Africa spends 8% of their GDP on health care (roughly half of what the US does). They do have universal coverage, but I believe it’s pretty lousy service from the little information I can get online. The wealthy use private insurance.
Do you contend that South Africa is a counter-example to the “fewer uninsured lowers expenditures” hypothesis?
I’m sure that must happen sometimes, but so what? A lot of insured people get medical treatment they could have done without. For example, every time I have been to the doctor, I have been advised that there was nothing wrong with me. So if I had been uninsured and gone without treatment, the cost to society would have been lower.
Also, a lot of people go to the doctor and get expensive treatment which doesn’t do them a lot of good.
So you can’t really assume that the cost to society of the uninsured is greater than if they had insurance. You need to do a quantitative analysis.
I wasn’t aware of that, but it does not surprise me.
I don’t know. What difference does it make?
Agreed, although I have no opinion either way if it’s unconstitutional or not. But I thought it important to mention the primary reason for it. The way some people talk (not you) you’d guess they think Obama’s only goal is to wipe his ass with the constitution and not help people who can’t get insurance.
I’m all for this compromise - no one who can prove that they will never get sick has to pay for health insurance. Sound fair?
If the issue is the Constitutional right of someone to not buy insurance, why would Mass. doing it be okay but Washington doing it not be okay?
I trust that today you understand that those who are now young and in insurance plans are supporting your bad habit of surviving to the point you need insurance, and see the error of your younger ways.
States have different powers than the Federal Government, as outlined in their respective Constitutions.
I don’t see an error of my younger ways - I made a financial risk calculation. If a young person today wishes to engage in the same decision making process, I would understand their thought process.
nope.
Should the government force people to pay taxes, just because they work hard and earn money?
But your risk calculation is founded on the rest of us paying for a catastrophic medical event that is beyond your control. A major accident can land you in the emergency room, where your inability to pay exposes everyone to your risk calculation, because your unpaid bill gets passed on to the rest of us in the form of higher medical costs and higher insurance premiums.
You do not live in isolation when you calculate your health risks. When young people as a group, who are mostly more healthy, but engage is more high risk behavior, decide they can get away with not buying health insurance, it imposes significant expenses on everyone when things can and do go wrong.
I worked within the system that was presented to me. Health insurance for an individual was too expensive based on my income at the time. I could afford the occasional physician visit and generic drugs. Carrying insurance for an extremely remote chance of a catastrophic incident did not make financial sense.
Now, if you don’t want people to make that decision, then you change the system. Just do not be surprised when people act in a rational fashion based on their own self interests.
Why do I have solar? The tax code and an ROI calculation made financial sense.
Why do I have a large truck? The tax code made it cheaper than a sedan through accelerated depreciation and write off abilities.
Why did I forego health insurance when I was an independent agent? The tax code and insurance regulatory system does not want me to cover myself in a fiscally attractive fashion that balances out the cost for a healthy 20 something male.
It is simply numbers, and how they apply to me and later my family.
Likewise, if you make your decisions based solely on self interest, do not be surprised if society as a whole decides something entirely different, because the group of young people you are a part of presents an unacceptable risk to the health care of everyone. Sometime, somewhere, everyone has to take one for the team; it just happens to be their turn now.
What you should have in that case have an insurance policy which covers catastrophic situations. Get a policy that has a $10000 deductible. That way if you do get your arm cut off or something, you have coverage. That type of coverage can be quite inexpensive.
For young people it’s not “getting sick” that brings on the big bills. It’s falling off your bike and cracking your skull or something like that. Accidents can happen to anyone.
So in your case, what would you have done if you were walking in the woods and a rock slipped from a ledge and cracked your skull. Could you have covered $XX,000 in medical costs from the care and rehab? Or would you have walked away from the bill?
At the time? Walked away. As I stated, I had no assets. Bankruptcy court at the time would have simply wiped the bill, and left me with a 7 year hit to my credit rating.
Now, I am posting all of this detail because the OP, in part, asked about who does not buy insurance. I am answering that one segment is people who have nothing to lose in bankruptcy court and who do not need ongoing health care aside from catastrophic.
Have you seriously not read the dozens of times this has been explained, including in this very thread? The states have plenary power, while the feds have powers limited by the constitution.