[jmspring]

As an American, no. Well aside from - yes a significant part thrives on seeing others than them suffer. Years ago, I spent multiple times a year at a B&B on the Hilo side of the big island. The host was one of the last "Grand Dame's" of Hilo. She was a cattle rancher that knew Roosevelt; her husband had been a friend of Linus Pauling. She did hikes in her 70s and 80s few in those ages can do now.

She was grandfathered under a form of medical insurance - I think older Blue Cross/Blue Shield - none can access now. At one point, the US did have better health care than we do at the moment. The fcking idiot boomers (including my parents) bought into the BS from Nixon, Reagan, etc. Hey - (good or bad) - let's stop allowing one to write off debt, but allow companies to do so, etc.

This country does have it's head up it's ass and a significant number blame everyone but themselves and how they vote.

We pay more (as a country) by a lot* and get significantly less for our medical coverage. Want to go self employed with a family of 3? Want a PPO? $4-6k/mo in California right now. Deductibles will be high.

[alex43578]

In California, if you have insurance, you’re paying for everyone else that doesn’t. Homeless guy wants to spend half his time in the ER for fake claims? You’re paying. Some methhead has a fast heartbeat? Roll an ambulance and rush him to the ER.

[bobbean]

Single mom gets hit by a red light runner? Straight to the ER. A guy who works two crappy jobs to keep a roof over his head has a heart attack? Straight to the ER. Fuck this logic of "I'm only paying for people who I think don't deserve it". There's plenty of people who genuinely need the help.

[alex43578]

I never said they shouldn't get care, but each of those people should pay for insurance to cover the costs of the care they receive.

The single mom, by law, has to have car insurance, but doesn't need health insurance in CA because she will be treated for free. Same with heart attack guy: sounds like he has no assets, so he's insulated from the costs of his care and lifestyle, a clear moral hazard.

[bobbean]

People can't always pay for insurance. The single mom wasn't driving, by the way. You seem make a lot of assumptions about people you don't know. And do you know what happens to the mom when shes's discharged from the hospital with chronic pain? She can't keep a steady job because her pain and her trauma keep her up at night, and shes's forced to call out too frequently. I think the real moral hazard is not taking care of the people around you, and not realizing that the worst possible thing that can happen to you is happening to someone every day, all the time, and those people sometimes need help. This world is full of fucked up, terrible things, and if you're going to sit there and complain that the homeless guy you know nothing about is trying to get a free sandwich and a warm bed on your dime, and that makes you angry, maybe you should look inward and around you and try to figure out what actually matters in life. I'm sure the people who are actually taking your money love you for blaming the homeless.

[alex43578]

The world is full of bad events. That's why we created insurance to help reduce the risk of these uncertain losses.

The single mom, had she bought health insurance, would see a portion of her medical costs covered in part because of the premiums she paid. The $10K out of pocket max under the ACA is onerous, but against the $100K+ potential costs of her ER/ICU/surgery bills, that's fair to everyone else who maintains insurance. You should help pay for what you use.

If you now want to stretch the scenario to all these other contingencies, good news: she's covered by SSI which she would've been paying into if she worked. She also has financial recourse against this driver that hit her (and their insurance that they are legally required to carry, even though CA loves to not enforce this), assuming she wasn't at fault in the accident.

You're right that there's "plenty of people who genuinely need the help", but you also need to help yourself. Pay for insurance, don't do drugs, don't smoke, don't be an alcoholic, and don't eat yourself into Type 2 diabetes. If you do that, you've just slashed all the biggest financial and health risks that are controllable, while saving yourself money and improving your quality of life.

[bobbean]

I read your comment in full before responding, it would have been kind of you to return the courtesy. Unless you're an ai, then cheese eric hair purple toast

[jmspring]

That statement can be made regardless of state. I'm pretty sure the costs charged to insurance companies are because of "agreed rates". Sometimes people with shitty insurance negotiate with the provider for the "cash rate". This isn't about the uninsured, it's about the way the system of middle men is setup.

[alex43578]

A number of California’s policy decisions, like giving free Medi-Cal to all illegal immigrants and their huge homeless population taking advantage of EMTALA, clearly result in more freeloading on the system. That’s along with California’s consolidation among hospitals, high waste and admin costs, etc.

[_DeadFred_]

'You are wasting my money on expensive ER visits'

California -'You're right, if we provide preventative care, we lower the significantly more expensive ER visits, save costs, and reduce ER wait times'

'more freeloading on the system'

[alex43578]

I'm fine with these people receiving preventative care, but they should share in the cost, rather than the taxpayer having to pay for all their health care.

40% of Californians are on Medi-Cal. 30 to 40% of Californians don't pay income taxes. The overlap between those two groups is basically 1:1. Therefore, 40% of Californians are essentially freeloading on the healthcare system through a combination of receiving care they don't pay for or via insurance they don't pay for.