We pay the middlemen, yes. I don't see how we pay for other people's healthcare. The private insurance that I've experienced takes many factors into account (age, quality of health, pre-existing conditions and so on). Thankfully because I'm both young, and don't have pre-existing conditions, I pay less insurance premiums than a kid born with diabetes.

Remember, we're talking about technicality here. We aren't talking about ethics. Strictly from a money standpoint, we're not paying for other people's insurance.

[–] Strykker@programming.dev 30 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

If you pay for insurance you are paying for other people's Healthcare. The whole reason to do insurance is that you have the ability to use more money from it than you ever put in, but will hopefully never need to. Otherwise it would make more sense to just have a health savings account.

[+] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee -8 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

What about the premiums though? Say the insurance premiums for x amount of coverage are 100 dollars. Doesn't matter if I'm a billionaire or if I'm homeless. The premium stays the same.

In a single payer universal healthcare system however, the premium would be a percentage of my income (collected via taxes). Suddenly, the 100 dollars becomes hundreds of thousands of dollars. Therefore, from my perspective, I am "paying for someone else's healthcare". This is the technicality that I'm talking about.

Now of course, fuck my perspective because fuck billionaires. This however, is out of scope of the discussion.

[–] Zink@programming.dev 4 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

You also have to consider that the healthcare is worth a lot more money to the billionaire than the homeless guy. Just like the roads and the protection of the armed forces worth more money to him. I’m sure the billionaire is a fan of price discrimination too, conveniently enough!

[–] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Sure! The homeless guy is very likely uninsured. They might die in the streets because of this. The billionaire on the other hand would get higher quality healthcare. What would not be happening though, is the billionaire paying for the homeless guy's healthcare.

Now of course, a consequence of that is the homeless man dying. Ethically, this is an incredibly shitty system. THAT'S why we need single payer universal healthcare. However, a consequence of that would be the rich paying for the poor people's healthcare.

[–] Zink@programming.dev 1 points 4 weeks ago

Yeah I didn’t comment on the “person A paying for person B” technicality because that’s always part of the deal. It happens with private insurance too. If the lowest paid worker at a company is healthy, and the billionaire CEO has a multitude of health problems, then if they’re using the same company insurance the poor person is paying for the rich person. It doesn’t matter that they’re paying the same premiums — the healthy poor person is getting less out than they paid in, and the sick rich person is getting more out than they paid in.

[–] Podunk@lemmy.world 27 points 4 weeks ago

Yes you are. The insurance company takes money from healthy people, scoops some off the top for themselves, and then distributes the rest to pay for grandmas hip replacement.

Unless you use the same or more than what you paid into insurance, you are subsidizing someone elses healthcare.