Skip to main content

View Diary: Three Dollars (305 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  But the poor man needs to have "skin in the game" (16+ / 0-)

    or he won't care about how much it costs.

    Or so they say.

    West. No further west. All sea. -- Robert Grenier

    by Nicolas Fouquet on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 07:11:05 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Perhaps that "skin" needs to be (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ladybug53

      proportionate to the resources available to a person.  A few pennies for the destitute - hundreds of dollars to the privileged.  This suggestion is not serious, since it would be a wasteful bureaucratic nightmare to impose.

      •  We 1% forget what "no money" means (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ozsea1, peregrine kate, ipsos, ladybug53

        $3 or $100, as a percent of zero, both become infinite.

        West. No further west. All sea. -- Robert Grenier

        by Nicolas Fouquet on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 09:32:05 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I understand your point - (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ladybug53

          As I understand it, one of the arguments for having people pay a co-pay is to avoid the overuse of a resource.  It is reasonable to assume that if a product or service is free to the end user, then they are more likely to use the resource - in this care medical care - more extensively, and possibly wastefully. This was an example of the opposite effect -  the access to necessary medical care was being restricted because a three dollar co-pay was beyond the means of the person in need.  From some of the comments made in responce to this diary, this is not all that uncommon.

          The point I was trying to make was about the concept of having "skin in the game." I was making the observation that if we are trying to avoid wasting scarce resources by making people pay a portion of the costs, then it also makes sense to have those expences be propotionate to the individuals ability to pay.  And believe me, I know what it is not to have even three dollars, and what it means to do without medical care at times when it would consider it a necessity.  

          •  "skin in the game" and scarcity (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ladybug53, Spoc42, mofembot

            that whole argument operates on the assumption that making health care free equates to setting out the free cheese sampler at the grocery store. Lowering the costs of health care is not going to entice people to suddenly put the doctor's office above Disney World as a family recreation spot.

            Plus--as the original diarist noted, even the amount of $3--a token amount to most of us--would have put the man in the wheelchair into a cascading world of misery were it not for the intervention of a kind and compassionate soul, who may or may not be there next month.

            When a resource like oil becomes scarce, it's "drill baby drill" - when a resource like medical care becomes scarce, it's "suck it up and pay more"--yet more doctors is certainly more attainable than more oil.

            How does the Republican Congress sit down with all the butthurt over taxing the wealthy?

            by athenap on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 05:52:23 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  What good does it do to make someone "care" (5+ / 0-)

      about the cost of a necessary prescription? Will that be able to make people avoid getting old and sick?

      We're not talking about liposuction, cosmetic surgery, or even Viagra here.

      •  Hey kids! They just lowered my copay (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ladybug53

        Cancel that trip to Disney, we're going to the Foot Doctor for Vacation!

        How does the Republican Congress sit down with all the butthurt over taxing the wealthy?

        by athenap on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 05:53:12 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site