Here you go
Okay, but it’s not 1.2 vs. 1.8.
The individual market is 10% sicker. And they have less claims than the group market, because they are lower income, and so avoid using any services.
Anyway, if you’re trying to say it’s possible to make Obamacare work better, I think everyone agrees, especially given the massive amount of sabotage. But you seem to also be saying that it’s worse than nothing, which I disagree.
That doesn’t sound super fair either, that they can’t get treated because they can’t afford it. Can we fix this while we’re at it? Throw Medicaid in the mix here as well.
And then chase down any inequities in Medicare? There are so many pockets of health care that aren’t fair.
Is this… are we just doing single payer with more steps? Or are we doing a lesson on the fair? It’s Sunday and I’m here for either or both.
Rs: All lives matter (until someone else has to financially contribute to sustaining it).
This is pertinent to twig’s comment about no pre-existing condition exclusion if there’d been continuous insurance coverage. What about when there are gaps in employment for whatever reason? Sure there’s the COBRA option, but that’s not cheap, especially burdensome with lack of an income, and there’s a time limit. I worked with someone who struggled to keep up with working while undergoing cancer treatment even with utilizing intermittent FMLA. Obviously they couldn’t not work because they needed insurance.
(Hopefully I’ve made @soyleche happy now.)
Happier, at least…
Oof, sorry, I didn’t read the thread title before I responded.
Something something herding cats something.
Like…universal healthcare perhaps? That’s about as spread out as you can get.
(I’m trying @soyleche. The cats keep sneaking out.)
You could carve out people who have annual spend above, say, the 95th percentile. Put them into a pool and spread that over everyone. The details with all of the retrospective true up, and trying to figure out if it’s one 95th percentile or if you set it separately for commercial vs Medicare could get thorny.
But ‘universal catastrophic coverage’ is tractable.
Now if you did this, skewness is a thing. The top 5% represents about 55% of total cost of care - I don’t have the exact number but that should be pretty close.
Is this really an unfair position? Being guaranteed a right to live is not the same as being guaranteed the right to affordable healthcare. Not even close IMO.
What if that right to live is connected to affordable healthcare? How would person X live if affordable healthcare was out of reach? Or that kid born with cystic fibrosis? They’d live for awhile, but a shortened lifespan with suffering.
It never says anything about the length of the life…
Of course, if you go too far down that road the “right to life” starts to become meaningless.
Taking the cystic fibrosis example, life span used to be in the teens. Now it’s age 50. You know, if you can afford it, both the parents when the child is young, then when that kid is grown and independent.
Or people who need organ transplants. Transplanted organs are going to those who most likely follow strict post-transplant care, and even then transplanted organs don’t last forever.
Is healthcare actually accessible if it’s not affordable?
I certainly don’t have all the answers, and if it was a quick easy fix it’d be solved already. But we cannot say that it’s not a significant problem.