Republicans, what do you think happens to the uninsured?

[mencken]

Those with the misfortune of requiring chemotherapy and radiotherapy would likely appreciate if they could buy a cheap policy that only covered conventional treatment for life-threatening illnesses such as cancer, rather than being priced out of the market because their insurance is required to cover services they will never or rarely use such as maternity benefits, mental health, prescription drugs, laboratory work, etc.

The Democrats shut down every grocery store and restaurant that does not offer substantial discounts on caviar, foie gras, halibut, King crab, etc. and then complain that it is too expensive for the poor to buy food.

[mencken]

Those with the misfortune of requiring chemotherapy and radiotherapy would likely appreciate if they could buy a cheap policy that only covered conventional treatment for life-threatening illnesses such as cancer, rather than being priced out of the market because their insurance is required to cover services they will never or rarely use such as maternity benefits, mental health, prescription drugs, laboratory work, etc.

The reason insurance works is because you are required to pay for services you will likely never or rarely use, thus subsidizing the costs for those who do need them.

As a male, I can guarantee that I will never need pregnancy services. Prescription drugs I can pay for out of pocket, and I am skeptical of the efficacy of what qualifies for mental health services even in the unlikely event that I do have a nervous breakdown.

And no, insurance does not work by requiring people to purchase coverage for services they won't need. Homeowners in the Rocky Mountains are not fined if they do not pay for flood insurance, single young people are not fined if they do not pay for life insurance, drivers are not fined if they do not pay for comprehensive car insurance (catastrophic coverage yes, but hitting someone else's car has negative externalities, unlike damaging your own vehicle). Insurance works by convincing enough people with low but not nonexistent probabilities of catastrophe to purchase their coverage that they can afford to pay the costs of one of their catastrophes and still make a profit. Any insurance company that fails to diversify (such as by covering a bunch of people with correlated, high, and/or self-imposed risk) would soon be out of business. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If I would rather accept certain death than be cruelly poisoned for what most likely would be an extra few months of torture, why should I pay for chemotherapy coverage? Fortunately, most people probably would like to be covered in the event of a cancer diagnosis, so that would likely be a popular item. Universal HIV screening, not as popular.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's fine if done the right way. There seems to be a general consensus that the poor should have some sort of health safety net, and thus I could see a role for insurance subsidies for those in bottom income tiers, provided that such subsidies match individual contribution (ensuring that the covered party has skin in the game) and that they are tapered off with increasing income (ensuring that the safety net exists without creating a marginal disincentive to acquiring a livelihood.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They would be cheaper than they are today or prior to PPACA, and health care costs would go down.

[mencken]

Those with the misfortune of requiring chemotherapy and radiotherapy would likely appreciate if they could buy a cheap policy that only covered conventional treatment for life-threatening illnesses such as cancer, rather than being priced out of the market because their insurance is required to cover services they will never or rarely use such as maternity benefits, mental health, prescription drugs, laboratory work, etc.

The Democrats shut down every grocery store and restaurant that does not offer substantial discounts on caviar, foie gras, halibut, King crab, etc. and then complain that it is too expensive for the poor to buy food.

I'm just here to point out that most conventional treatments to cancer require prescription drugs and laboratory work.

Carry on.

Yes, chemotherapy drugs and Adderall are both equally vital for all people to have access to, and the lab work of cancer patients and healthy 25-year olds are both equally vital.

[mencken]

As a male, I can guarantee that I will never need pregnancy services.

But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be part of the insurance plan. "Never" is consistent with "likely never." It all falls under the umbrella of subsidizing the medical costs of others. Females can't get prostate cancer but are still subsidizing the medical costs for males who get it.

That ought not to be the case either. If you want a safety net for life-threatening medical conditions, then advocate that, but do not call it "insurance".

As an aside, I think women have considerably more control over whether they get pregnant than men do over getting prostate cancer. Fire insurance would be a lot more expensive if the insurance companies had to sell half of their policies to arsonists.
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's not how I meant it. =P I'll rephrase. The reason insurance works is because you a pay for services you will likely never or rarely use, thus subsidizing the costs for those who do need them.[/quote]

I do not do so out of my own beneficence though; I do so to guard myself against the unlikely possibility that I will fall victim to the same misfortune.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well that's a rather loaded question. Death by tumor is very much torture and chemotherapy can save your life. Regardless, your logic applies to any kind of medical coverage at all. Any possible treatment could hypothetically be passed over voluntarily, and thus why should it be part of a medical insurance plan?[/quote]

The point is it should be my choice whether or not to have such insurance, and what goods and services it should ensure. Obviously that would be an extreme minority viewpoint that would not prevail in a free-market for health care. Other, less life-threatening conditions would have a greater degree of consumer choice and discretion over coverage.

[mencken]

Those with the misfortune of requiring chemotherapy and radiotherapy would likely appreciate if they could buy a cheap policy that only covered conventional treatment for life-threatening illnesses such as cancer, rather than being priced out of the market because their insurance is required to cover services they will never or rarely use such as maternity benefits, mental health, prescription drugs, laboratory work, etc.

The Democrats shut down every grocery store and restaurant that does not offer substantial discounts on caviar, foie gras, halibut, King crab, etc. and then complain that it is too expensive for the poor to buy food.

I'm just here to point out that most conventional treatments to cancer require prescription drugs and laboratory work.

Carry on.

Yes, chemotherapy drugs and Adderall are both equally vital for all people to have access to, and the lab work of cancer patients and healthy 25-year olds are both equally vital.

The question isn't whether or not they're equally vital, but that they are both in their own ways vital. Speaking as someone with a pretty extreme case of ADHD and frankly could not do my job without my medication and just be a productive tax-paying citizen comma it is pretty damn vital to me, as his health insurance to subsidize its costs

Why the hell should all items be equally vital in healthcare before they are subsidized? That makes zero sense. If they are vital, make them financially available. Why the frick is this such an impossible concept for anyone on the American hard right to embrace? Genuine question.

The problem is that these are fundamentally scarce resources - not everybody can possible get all the health care they desire. There is always going to be some sort of rationing mechanism to allocate it - the question is whether you desire that to be a market or a bureaucratic review board deciding whether or not your claim is medically necessary.

Your arguments in this thread were awfully s***** to begin with, and then you just had to screw the pooch and compare childbirth two arson, didn't you?

While the acts in and of themselves are dissimilar, the point is that both are fundamentally uninsurable events, as the party being "insured" has complete control over whether the event happens to them. If that analogy is too difficult to comprehend, would you prefer that I compare it to a casino that has latitude to change what cards are dealt after the bet has been placed?