... is actually your problem.
Keith Hennessey answers a question Kelly posed in a comment a while back. Why is the budget deficit rising in the out years? Well, one reason might be the monstrous increase in health care funding as the president's plans really get rolling. That $634B he's got in his budget is, get this, just a down payment.
Holy Toledo.
I don't get this at all. Why isn't your health insurance your problem? Given that the vast majority of people between the ages of 18 and 25 don't need health insurance - they don't get sick and don't require office visits, why can't we say that with a high school diploma and 7 years to get your life in order, you can find a way to get yourself health insurance?
We'd all be a lot better off if we did this. Anything that leads to more personal responsibility is good, anything that leads to less is bad.
5 comments:
Well, back when I was 25, I thought to myself, "Ok, I am now in a position to go buy myself health insurance".
So, I went to the insurance agent, filled out an application, got my physical exam, the doctor said, "well, your blood pressure isn't high yet, but it is borderline. You're in really good shape otherwise, so keep an eye on the blood pressure, OK?"
"OK" I said, and I went back to the insurance agent.
AND HE TURNED ME DOWN FLAT! BECAUSE I *MIGHT* DEVELOP HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE LATER! This was while the agent was sitting there, sucking oxygen through the cannula in his nose! *That* is how the insurance industry deals with individuals. Granted, I could have kept looking, and probably somebody would have sold me insurance eventually, but it kind of put me off of the whole idea, you know?
So, I just went back to paying my medical costs (such as they were) out of pocket, until I got a job that provides health insurance. Which I understand is actually costing me about $12,000 a year in reduced salary. It's effectively a flat tax on me, except I'm paying it to the insurance company instead of to the government. I have no say in which company, and precious little choice of what plan to use, and if I opt out I only get about 10% of that $12,000 a year back. So, how would I be worse off if the government taxed me that $12,000 for health coverage instead of my employer/insurance company taxing me the $12,000?
My parents live in Australia (moved there after I left home), and they tell me that the system they have there works pretty well, actually: if you don't have money, you can get care if you are willing to wait. If you do have money, you can pay yourself and get it done now. The hospital there saved my father from dying of a heart attack last summer, and showed admirable promptness and professionalism. They appear to have pretty much everything in the way of medical care that we've got here. If the Australians can do it, would it be so horrible for us to do it?
So in the end, you were able to provide for yourself.
Why don't we just go with a government solution? Well, because the deal you outline above is not the deal they offer. It's not a 12K for 12K trade. It's taking $48K from the guy who went to 7 years of school to get his MSEE and now works for HP producing things of value and giving most of it to several high school dropouts who don't do much of anything.
The more you guarantee with other people's money, the less the indolent will do.
Tim,
You blame the insurance company, but you should blame the law.
First, rather than have a national risk pool, the 50 state insurance commissioners control the health insurance vendors in each state. If your state demands you, as an individual, comprise a "pool" of 1, then the companies cannot spread the risk and they will not insure your health. They cannot, because they cannot estimate the risk for an individual. That's just basic math. The same would be true for your car or your house, were auto or homeowner's insurance treated the same way.
Second, again depending on your state, you may be forced to buy a lot of insurance you don't want. For example, as a single man, you probably did not need maternity coverage. Maternity coverage is expensive. But virtually all states mandate that every policy include it. When I lived in Illinois, all insurers were required to cover acupuncture and chiropracty. I don't have a problem with acupuncturists, chiropractors, or their patients, but I just don't buy into it, and I certainly don't want to pay for it as a part of my insurance bill. But the coverage was a political decision made by the legislature and forced on the companies.
Third, all insurance companies - or the government - must decide what procedures they will cover. In a private market (which, in the US, is restricted to HSAs), coverage is decided by the marketplace. If company X won't cover MRIs and there is a market for insurance that does, it will get covered. In government-run health care, political clout drives coverage. That's why Canadians can be denied treatment for advanced colorectal cancer, but can get sex-change operations. The transsexual community is well-organized and generally supported by the Left, and late-stage colorectal cancer victims simply don't have much political clout. They don't even make giant papier-mache puppet heads for G-20 protests.
So be careful what you wish for. As long as you don't get very sick, national health care works like a charm. It's at the treatment margins where the problems crop up. That's also where the vast majority of the money is spent, which is why the US has the most expensive health care and the highest cancer survival rates (c.f., Coleman, et. al, Lancet - Oncology, V. 9, #8, 2008) in the world (including Australia). It's a redux of the old saw, "Your money or your life!"
They can have my money. YMMV.
Salud, amigo!
tyriz: (TIE-riz; n, Arabic) a long, thin, flexible rod used for Threat Level Yellow wife-beatings
A government-run health care system is definitely the option to choose here. I mean the US has the best doctors and equipment in the world but it's kind of useless if it can only be provided for a certain percentage of people, those that have insurance or are capable of paying the expenses on their own. Other people don't have a chance, isn't that a little discriminating. Plus, I must agree with Tim here, why is your salary money going to a private company that can do whatever it wants with it, your 12k a year may have gone to someone else as a bonus for that year. And that's just wrong. I don't see how this current system is still holding up because it is very very far from being effective.
Take care, Lorne
I mean the US has the best doctors and equipment in the world but it's kind of useless if it can only be provided for a certain percentage of people, those that have insurance or are capable of paying the expenses on their own.This is absolutely untrue.
My mom is a breast cancer survivor; she had insurance, and my folks both work hard, and they paid for it without the gov't's help.
Well, since she has survived, we now get told anytime ANYONE in the valley has breast cancer.
One one other is actually paying for her own treatment, by insurance or out of pocket. Several of them have much higher incomes than my folks.
Same story with mom's knee replacement-- she paid for it, and is still paying for it, along with complications for a blood clot.
Difference being, in that case, none of the other folks we know are paying for their own operation.
All on the tax payer's dime, or via charities.
Only one person of these twenty or so is actually too poor to get health insurance.
In a couple of cases, even *with* their health insurance, the gov't is paying for the care.
Post a Comment