Saturday, 29 July 2017

Some people just do not understand insurance                                    Old Lange's rant of the Day 

You are absolutlely right, Richard, the question WHY THE HELL SHOULD I PAY FOR YOUR PRE-EXISTING CONDITION? shows that Russell does not understand insurance. It is like asking WHY THE HELL SHOULD I PAY FOR YOUR hospitalization when you fell down the stairs drunk? If Russel understood insurance, I don’t think even he would suggest that the first is an illegitimate expense because a pre-existing condition is not your fault, but the second is a legitimate expense because falling-down drunk is your fault.

In another exchange, you ask Russell What's more important to you, your wallet or remaining ideologically pure? The answer for many is: ideological purity. They would rather cling to a for-profit system than get better healthcare, for everyone, at a lower cost. Oddly, this is exactly what President Trump promised America when he started on his Repeal Obamacare drive: he promised that Trumpcare would deliver better healthcare, for everyone, at a lower cost. The difference is that single-payer systems (as used in every 1st-world nation bar the USA) would deliver this promise, while Trumpcare never had any intention of doing so – it was a pure con.

Michael Master has argued elsewhere that Senator McCain helped Republicans by keeping Obamacare alive. (He may be right, though it seems odd for Michael to crow about serving party before country.) Obamacare is a very flawed system and hence easy to campaign against. Still, most Republicans and quite a few Democrats would prefer to keep Obamacare rather than accept a single-payer system, because a single-payer system bears the label “socialism,” and “socialism” is a word that sends them quaking in their boots. They do not mind the “socialism” of our military, who defend ALL Americans, regardless of whether they can afford to pay for that defence. They don’t mind the “socialism” of a police force, who will protect all citizens, regardless of their ability to pay. They are happy with the “socialism” of a fire department that protects all property, regardless of income. It is only healthcare that drives them to say "Healthcare is a human right? That is a pantload of socialist shit."

Like Russel, they will argue that “my boyfriend’s cousin had to wait for a year for a hang-nail operation under socialized medicine,” deliberately ignoring the fact that every single-payer system in the western world (i.e. most developed countries bar the USA) allows queue-jumping by those who can afford to pay for it. It is like the “socialism” of schools that will educate all children, regardless of ability to pay – though anyone may insist on their right to pay more for a better education.

Single-payer would deliver good basic healthcare for everyone at a lower cost and allow the more affluent free choice: the ability to purchase even better healthcare if they so desired. The end result would be that the affluent would get the same excellent healthcare that they get now at the same price they now pay and the poor would get better healthcare at the same price they pay now (little or nothing). Everyone in America would win.

But that would be “socialism” and all good Americans hate “socialists,” except for our socialist military, police, firefighters, and teachers, who we love. (Okay, maybe not teachers.)

PS: Cui bono: What happens to the health insurance industry under single-payer and does that explain their billions in political donations? Opposition to single-payer is funded by insurance companies and healthcare providers who grow very, very fat on for-profit medical care that is inferior to, and more costly than, medical care in the rest of the developed world. Those who do not understand what insurance is and those who are terrified of the word “socialism” are their dupes and pawns

EU accused of 'wilfully letting refugees drown'
I thought it was Libya who was willfully letting people drown.

No comments:

Post a Comment