Subject:
|
Re: A question for my Canadian pals
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 6 Oct 2004 18:24:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1132 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > That's kind of how the knucklehead had characterized it. In my view, it's a
> > question of most-widespread benefit. If 90% of the population has access to
> > good health care, then that's great, even if access to certain procedures is
> > limited.
>
> It would depend on which procedures, right?
Sure, but today my access to certain procedures is limited by my income and my
insurance, so I don't know that it's any better in practice.
> > On the other hand, I've never needed an MRI, so that service is, to
> > date and in practical terms, irrelevant to me.
>
> When you need it, you (often but not always) really need it though, don't you?
Well, then we're back to the brain surgeon vs. hole-digger, aren't we?
> > I'd rather have my routine medical costs covered, even if it means that
> > an uncommon procedure is made less accessible to me.
>
> That seems counterintuitive to me.
Yeah, I'm not sure that I can support my view. I'm looking for a good analogy
to articulate it, but I haven't found it yet.
> Aren't routine costs just that, routine? As in, expected? Wouldn't it make more
> sense for an insurance scheme to cover unexpected or catastrophic costs, rather
> than routine ones, and for people to pay routine costs directly (and thus have
> some direct market influence over the cost and quality of things like flu shots,
> wart removals, earwax cleaning and so forth)?
Hmm... If routine costs are (relatively) small but unavoidable, but a
catastrophic cost is huge but only (insert percentage here) likely to occur,
then circumstances might incline a person of limited resources to wager that
he'd be better off in getting help with his small but unavoidable costs than in
waiting for help with a cost that might never come. I expect that this kind of
gamble goes on all the time, in healthcare as well as in other arenas.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: A question for my Canadian pals
|
| (...) "getting help"? Do you mean having someone other than yourself pay for things that are routine(1)? Isn't that just rent seeking because you don't want to pay and think you can stick someone else with it? What are we really talking about here? (...) (20 years ago, 6-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: A question for my Canadian pals
|
| (...) Part of the problem might be in saying that an uncommon procedure is necessarily less accessible to you. In the US health insurance system, expensive procedures usually come with expensive deductables, so while the line in front of you may be (...) (20 years ago, 6-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: A question for my Canadian pals
|
| (...) It would depend on which procedures, right? This columnist is no doubt biased and has chosen a nice sounding factoid from a friendly source: (URL) Fraser Institute points out that patients in that country (which is still held up as a model for (...) (20 years ago, 6-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
24 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
