"You're working as a consultant and effortlessly supporting your children, along with someone in your family who has serious health issues?" no children, but I could afford it (I choose no at the moment). However, I am supporting a family member with serious health issues, helping some friends out who are currently in need, donating massive amounts of money to charity, etc. so... I'd say yes. (hell, I know consultants that get over $500/hr - I'm not one of them, but consultants can make boat loads of money).
"And what does this catastrophic insurance cover?" everything but child delivery (with no complications) but it had a large deductible. BUT it would certainly keep you from going bankrupt with >$100k medical debt.
"I'll reserve judgement on what risk you (and your spouse and kids and perhaps that elderly parent with increasingly demanding healthcare needs) are running until I learn what that el-cheapo catastrophic insurance you've bought covers. " I didn't buy the catastrophic health care - I choose better because I wanted a lower deductible. I could have survived on the cheaper... but the cost delta wasn't great so...
"And yet other societies manage to minimize the instances of people having to go without healthcare much better than we do" so people claim... but I've yet to see a meaningful study that shows it. Oh sure you can point to the WHO/UN study - but 20% of your score comes from how 'universal' your health care is (which is a begging the question logical fallacy). You could point to life expectancies but that's a terrible measure as MANY things influence it that are not part of medical care (US has more murders and more traffic accidents). AND the US has the best survival rates for cancer and many major illnesses (far better than Europe, canada, etc...) AND that includes the poor.
"I think that the decision about who gets what healthcare should not be based on how much money the patient can shell out, but on basic humanity and the likelihood of a good outcome. " it will ultimately be based on money no matter where you are (look at NICE in the UK) because there isn't enough to give every one the health care they need... so...
"which is why their life expectancy is longer than ours." as said before - fewer traffic accidents and murders that kill disproportionately younger people and lower the life expectancy. University of Ohio (if memory serves correctly - I can dig up the study if you want) had a study that corrected for these and showed the US has a higher life expectancy when you account for these...
no subject
no children, but I could afford it (I choose no at the moment). However, I am supporting a family member with serious health issues, helping some friends out who are currently in need, donating massive amounts of money to charity, etc. so... I'd say yes. (hell, I know consultants that get over $500/hr - I'm not one of them, but consultants can make boat loads of money).
"And what does this catastrophic insurance cover?"
everything but child delivery (with no complications) but it had a large deductible. BUT it would certainly keep you from going bankrupt with >$100k medical debt.
"I'll reserve judgement on what risk you (and your spouse and kids and perhaps that elderly parent with increasingly demanding healthcare needs) are running until I learn what that el-cheapo catastrophic insurance you've bought covers. "
I didn't buy the catastrophic health care - I choose better because I wanted a lower deductible. I could have survived on the cheaper... but the cost delta wasn't great so...
"And yet other societies manage to minimize the instances of people having to go without healthcare much better than we do"
so people claim... but I've yet to see a meaningful study that shows it. Oh sure you can point to the WHO/UN study - but 20% of your score comes from how 'universal' your health care is (which is a begging the question logical fallacy). You could point to life expectancies but that's a terrible measure as MANY things influence it that are not part of medical care (US has more murders and more traffic accidents). AND the US has the best survival rates for cancer and many major illnesses (far better than Europe, canada, etc...) AND that includes the poor.
"I think that the decision about who gets what healthcare should not be based on how much money the patient can shell out, but on basic humanity and the likelihood of a good outcome. "
it will ultimately be based on money no matter where you are (look at NICE in the UK) because there isn't enough to give every one the health care they need... so...
"which is why their life expectancy is longer than ours."
as said before - fewer traffic accidents and murders that kill disproportionately younger people and lower the life expectancy. University of Ohio (if memory serves correctly - I can dig up the study if you want) had a study that corrected for these and showed the US has a higher life expectancy when you account for these...