NEMJ take on the election and healthcare

[brewer]

New England Journal of Medicine's take on a Trump or Hillary election and the potential effects on health care coverage.

Trump: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1610716

Hillary: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1610712

[abaris]

What I don't get is the American aversion to public. In most other countries there's only public for basic coverage. They take about a fourth of your net earnings for healthcare as well as pension provisions. There's a cap on that. So, I would say it's unjust, since if you earn a measly 1200, you pay 300, but if you earn 120000, you don't pay 30000 but something below that. I think the cap is at 4000, maybe 5000 by now.

You still can add private to your package, which earns you additional goodies. Such as private rooms or special not lifesaving treatments that you would have to wait for with only the public option. So the private sector isn't locked out. It's only that you can't be excluded because of preexisting conditions or lifestyle. Public insurance also can't back out because of something you didn't mention when signing up.

And as someone who had to lawyer up on two occasions when dealing with private insurances, I certainly appreciate the fact that health care doesn't fall into that kind of category.