>Universal health care is a euphemism for the poor and sick getting their medical care subsidized by the wealthy and healthy.
Have you ever worked in the US healthcare system? I worked for a medical diagnostics lab and spent a couple weeks in our billing department shadowing them at one point, we were writing off a minimum of 100k/day (and that is a very conservative estimate based on the 1 billing person I shadowed) in services for indigent patients.
So the US healthcare model as it stands is a euphemism for the wealthy and healthy subsidizing the poor and sick in an insanely inefficient way.
> So the US healthcare model as it stands is a euphemism for the wealthy and healthy subsidizing the poor and sick in an insanely inefficient way.
Don't really understand this line. The US model itself is a euphemism? What?
I have no doubt that indigent patients get a break from a lot of facilities, but my question would be: why are those services so expensive in the first place? Why is it totally impossible for a person making a reasonable income to pay for a service like healthcare by themselves? You seem to be assuming the costs for your lab are totally normal and legit and wow, isn't it amazing the breaks we give people, but maybe your lab could be charging a lot less than it is for its services?
I don't know obviously, you work there, I don't, I'm just pointing out the underlying issue.
Have you ever worked in the US healthcare system? I worked for a medical diagnostics lab and spent a couple weeks in our billing department shadowing them at one point, we were writing off a minimum of 100k/day (and that is a very conservative estimate based on the 1 billing person I shadowed) in services for indigent patients.
So the US healthcare model as it stands is a euphemism for the wealthy and healthy subsidizing the poor and sick in an insanely inefficient way.