[extropy-chat] Who Gets Expensive Treatments Under Socialism? (was Cryonics is the only option?)

[Rafal Smigrodzki]

On 4/16/07, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/16/07, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
> > ### Absolutely incorrect. The US governments spend more per person on
> > healthcare for the uninsured than most European systems spend on the
> > insured there, so (unfortunately, in my opinion) everybody here gets
> > expensive treatments, whether life-saving or not.
> >
>
> See:
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States>
> for a good summary.
> The references at the end of the article are also worth reading.
>
> Quotes:
> In the United States, around 85% of citizens have health insurance,
> either through their employer or purchased individually.
> Federal law ensures public access to emergency services regardless of
> ability to pay. Those without health insurance coverage are expected
> to pay privately for medical services. Health insurance is expensive
> and medical bills are overwhelmingly the most common reason for
> personal bankruptcy in the United States.

### Federal largesse is much more than the EMTALA services you
referred to. Medicaid, as well as multiple state programs for the
indigent, essentially assure full access to medical care,
independently of the ability to pay (or rather, in case of inability
to pay privately, Medicaid will cover more medical expenses than the
average European could expect in his country. You can look up the
statistics.

Health insurance is cheap. I pay only about 150$ per month for my family.

The study alleging medical bills as the most common cause of personal
bankruptcy was flawed: it was basically a tabulation of answers to a
survey. Of course, most people did not mention the TV's or cars they
bought instead of medical insurance, they only spoke about the results
of their careless profligacy, the financial meltdown that followed an
"unexpected" illness.

Rafal