[EvanAnderson]

We need to get rid of the unregulated, manifest "socialist" medical system that the United States has today and replace it with something that is a known quantity. A public system is one option (and one that I'm in favor of), but there could be other solutions too.

In general, the current system doesn't stop people who can't pay from receiving care. If we agree that allowing someone to die because they can't pay isn't acceptable then we need to have some kind of public system. Care is rationed by insurers and providers who make judgement calls that, largely, aren't subject to public scrutiny or regulation. (We have the "death panels" that those opposed to public healthcare railed against, but these "panels" are made up of insurers and providers working in a decentralizd, uncoordianted, and uncontrolled manner.)

What we have is a "shadow socialist" system where those parties who can afford to pay have to carry the slack for everybody who can't. Individuals and employers end up paying higher premiums to insurers. Healthcare providers increase the cost of procedures to cover the write-offs for the uninsured. Insurers negotiate relationships that limit consumer choice or access to procedures that providers aren't willing or able to discount.

It's like the entire mess is designed to be suboptimal for all parties involved. It's depressing that, as a country, we can't have reasonable discourse, agree to compromise, and come up with some kind of substantive strategy.

[tptacek]

"Socialist" is a bad term for what we have. The insured do pay for the uninsured (mostly via taxes), but the uninsured don't get free rides: the system we have bankrupts them, often repeatedly, when they have health problems.

[EvanAnderson]

That's why I said "socialist" (in quotes) instead of socialist. It's not a true socialist system-- it's just a big ball of mud that's grown up over time rather than being something that is designed. Different interest groups have exerted influence over the years to shape that ball of mud in such a way that it benefits them, but it's still a ball of mud. It has the effect of spreading the cost to those who can pay (or who don't have the leverage to get discounts), much the same way that a socialist system would, but without the benefits of having a well thought-out socialist system that is subject to public scrutiny and regulation.

I don't know what part of my taxes go to paying for the uninsured. I have anecdotal experience of seeing rather large hospital bills for emergency written-off because the person receiving care didn't have adequate insurance. I would agree that someone with health problems is likely to end up with no assets or credit, bankrupt, and receiving some kind of public assistance.

[Dylan16807]

You haven't even mentioned the fact that people without insurance are forced to use the most expensive services (and then go bankrupt and not pay) because that's the only kind they can get.