Rant-care

[sweetbenny]

Years ago, I made a mistake that landed me in the hospital after an emergency rescue crew plucked me out of a a rural town in Nebraska. Because I was unemployed, the government stepped in to pay the roughly $50,000 my care cost. If I had been employed at the time and inelegable for that government assistance... I would have been bankrupt. I was

Comments

[freyley]

Your particular problem would have been just as well solved if we had mandatory catastrophic coverage for everyone: pays all, or nearly all costs about either 5k or 10k, providing they're for life-preserving care.

I say this because that would be much cheaper and still prevent the situation you were in.

[freyley]

By the way, I'm really glad that you're alive and not bankrupt. =) (and more people alive and not bankrupt is a good thing).

[sweetbenny]

Much cheaper than what?

[freyley]

Much cheaper than the price of government-run health insurance, paid either by individuals paying the cost of the public option, or everyone paying the cost through taxes of universal public insurance.

Now, granted, a law to encourage or require catastrophic coverage isn't on the table, so it's not one of the options you can call your Senator and ask them to vote for. But it's worth remembering how narrow is the debate going on in Washington right now.

[keystricken]

Hear, hear!

[anonymous]

Unlike just about every other similar nation, we lack universal health care. I'd say it makes a hell of a lot more sense than catastrophic coverage. I would love to pay my taxes and actually get something for them. Other than military build-up.

If only we had taken care of this 70 years ago, when most other nations were, we wouldn't be in this situation. And we need to raise the top tax bracket (ie those making more than $250k after taxes) back to above 50%. I'd be in favor of 90%. If you made $100m, you'd still get $10m. And who, really, needs more than $10m a year?

If not, prepare for pitchforks and torches...