[Holybeds]

Where I live you know the cost before you go to the doctor since you will only pay a symbolic sum of 30 USD even if the visit ends up with something like a life long cancer treatment. If you need medicine you will pay at most 120 USD per year regardless of the costs.

The idea that your access to healthcare should be linked to your own or your parents financial is crazy.

[miketery]

I agree in principal to an extent - however economics need to be tied to the end product somewhat. Otherwise many people would opt for $100k healthcare cost (at the expense of the public) to extend their life for a few more months, this is not reasonable. Resources are finite - therefore we need appropriate allocation.

In the end I agree that a basic safety net is necessary and serves a greater good - providing things like normal checkups, preventative services, and acute trauma care is reasonable. However $200k for a second heart surgery for someone who hasn't taken heed of earlier exercise or diet advice by a practitioner should not be supported.

[jlebar]

Serious question: Do you live a perfect life? Do you exercise daily? Do you never eat processed meat (linked to cancer)? Do you never drink soda (linked to metabolic syndrome)? Do you not smoke? Do you not drink any alcohol (linked to cancer)? Do you live close to your work so as to minimize the time spent in a car (car accidents are a major cause of preventable death)? Are you not overweight, even a little? And so on.

Do you think that someone who follows all but one of those rules still deserves healthcare? All but two? What's the moral difference between someone who smokes and someone who hasn't taken heed of diet/exercise advice after getting heart surgery? Where do you draw the line?

It's easy to say, "I don't want to pay for the healthcare of some hypothetical 'slob'". But make it real, consider what this actually means, and I think it's not something most of us want.

None of us is perfect. I'm sure that even olympic athletes occasionally eat bacon. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, right?

[Holybeds]

> However $200k for a second heart surgery for someone who hasn't taken heed of earlier exercise or diet advice by a practitioner should not be supported.

I disagree that failing to adhere to a certain diet should be punishable by death.

[AnthonyMouse]

> Where I live you know the cost before you go to the doctor since you will only pay a symbolic sum of 30 USD even if the visit ends up with something like a life long cancer treatment. If you need medicine you will pay at most 120 USD per year regardless of the costs.

Then the problem is you have no pricing mechanism for determining how much the provider should actually be paid. If you offer less than what people value the service at, you'll get shortages (or, in this context, waiting lists and less life-saving medical R&D). If you offer too much, you're overpaying (see also US government contractors).

Governments in Europe apparently solve the "paying too much" problem by systematically underpaying, but that doesn't work if everybody does it. The US can't subsidize your medical R&D if they're doing the same thing.

> The idea that your access to healthcare should be linked to your own or your parents financial is crazy.

I've never understood why people have this idea about healthcare but not even more immediate necessities like food and housing. It's not as if the solution you're proposing is even analogous to the solutions we use for the poor there (i.e. free clinics akin to homeless shelters and soup kitchens). If the problem is that free clinics are poorly funded, why isn't the solution to fund them better rather than nationalizing the entire healthcare system?

[Holybeds]

> I've never understood why people have this idea about healthcare but not even more immediate necessities like food and housing.

Hmm but I have the same view for food and housing. Where I live if your mother doesn't have allow money to buy proper food the government will contribute (both for food and housing).

[conanbatt]

With the difference that a long-cancer treatment might cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in the US and simply bankrupt the hospital.

Its easier to eat up cost if its a lot lower and has caps. The US has no apetite for those level of restrictions.

[Holybeds]

Not sure if you are joking but the hospitals are paid by the government for the provided services (via tax money). Obviously a life long cancer treatment will cost much more than 30 USD.