**** Elections thread *****

[Savy]

When you wreck your car, and you have insurance, you don't pay for the repairs, Everyone who has car insurance with your insurance company does.

So yes, healthy people pay for sick peoples healthcare. When the Healthy people become older and sicker, they too benefit from this system. Broadening the base of who has health insurance, makes these premiums cheaper for everyone. Social Security is ran in a manner, so that young workers, pay for older peoples retirement. When the younger workers turn old, the new generation of younger workers finances the older peoples retirement incomes.

Good drivers, pay for bad drivers, car repairs, that's how car insurance works. The government mandates every car owner gets insurance.

For a start you don't understand insurance, you group people together who are of similar risk. People who are of very low risk get grouped with others who are of very low risk. Now insurance companies fuck about with lots of money making schemes which blur lines of things but that is ultimately how it works.

Insurance works when the cost of a loss would impact you negatively more so than the cost of insurance which covers it. If you insure something which you can cover the loss of and it isn't a big deal to you then you're an idiot.

The reason you can't afford healthcare is because you are such a risk that the only way for an insurance company to make money out of you is if your premiums are mental. So what you're actually doing with your healthcare system is saying that it's too expensive for you to be able to afford it but if everyone groups together then we can afford it. That would be stupid but ultimately fine if people wanted to get together and pay for your healthcare then fair enough. Instead though what you want is for this to happen to everyone so insurance companies have to take on huge risks and to do this they just raise the prices massively.

I'd go as far to say car insurance in the way that it works is a scam however what's different there is that people get banned from driving and ruled out of driving by the cost of their insurance if they are such a risk. You ultimately want everyone to be able to drive no matter their risk and it to be paid for by everyone else.

Are you against car insurance as well? If you are against having car insurance, why?

How funny that I say this in my post before reading yours.

[Jack Sawyer]

How funny that I say this in my post before reading yours.

Hahaha, even funnier is that I did not see the car insurance rhetoric before that post. I thought I was the first to ask about that, but apparently that was already a thing

The nanny state at its finest. People don't choose to buy healthcare when they have the choice? Force them to buy it. This is unfair and more costly to society than otherwise? Who cares? We're government and we're social justice warriors; we're in the business of convincing people that the harm we cause them is aid.

What about the marketing costs of the product (you know, the four Ps) for the companies? Is that neglible in the cost for the consumers? Not having to market should bring total costs down, right?


Also, you are prohibited by law to negotiate prices of drugs in the US right now, right? Or am I mistaken? Why would leaving things in the hands of the private market bring any change beneficial to the actual consumer of the product?

[JimmyS1985]

Medicare is not allowed to negotiate the prices of prescription drugs. Why it pays profoundly more for the same drugs, as Medicaid and the VA.

[Savy]

Hahaha, even funnier is that I did not see the car insurance rhetoric before that post. I thought I was the first to ask about that, but apparently that was already a thing.

Tbf I think I did a good job in my post explaining why they aren't the same thing. Forced insurance is a scam in the same way that forced anything is but I'll get into that another time.

[wufwugy]

What about the marketing costs of the product (you know, the four Ps) for the companies? Is that neglible in the cost for the consumers? Not having to market should bring total costs down, right?

Also, you are prohibited by law to negotiate prices of drugs in the US right now, right? Or am I mistaken? Why would leaving things in the hands of the private market bring any change beneficial to the actual consumer of the product?

There are a handful of ways in which universal insurance has downward pressure on costs. What we're concerned with, however, is net effect on cost as well as net effect on quantity and quality. In general, the downward pressure on costs element of universal coverage is small compared to other market reforms, and it's something private enterprise gets too.