You blame the insurance company, but you should blame the law.Alternately, I can just pirate his comments and put them up here.
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.
:-)
8 comments:
I agree, he ought to go back to blogging! I miss his posts.
It's all kinda scary, isn't it?
Not to mention mental health, which is already one of the biggest departments of scam in medicaid as it is.
Re: your comment on Jack Kemp--I wasn't old enough to vote for him!!
I agree with what SA says, and I would just like to point out the implication: we already have socialized medicine to a large extent, it just got squeezed in through the cracks by stealth instead of done up-front. This gives us most of the downside of socialized medicine (lack of real choice, poor economics, heavy layers of bureaucracy, and general difficulty getting anything done) without the *one* actual benefit (always having access to medical care, even if you lose your job).
Yep, SA needs to get back to blogging.
I remain baffled by people complaining about the lack of choices, poor service and high cost of health care due in large part, to bureaucratization, turning around and saying all those negatives will go away with more... bureaucratization.
Dean:
I'm not saying they'll go away, although I wish they would. I'm saying we're *already* getting the punishment without the benefit. What's the point of fighting against socialized medicine because of all the horrible side effects, when *we are already being saddled with the horrible side effects*?
If you want to eliminate Medicare/Medicaid, deregulate the insurance companies, and allow actual competition between health-care providers, fine, I could get behind that. I personally would like to be able to just buy a "major medical" insurance policy to cover medical costs exceeding $10,000, and pay the rest out-of-pocket. But that's not one of the options that is being discussed by our wonderful elected representatives, now is it?
Tim, I think we are in violent agreement... I was using the royal "those people".
Count me in the "I want to purchase catastrophic health insurance and pay out of pocket for the rest" camp.
Thank you for your kind words, KT et. al..
I don't want no steenkin' insurance. I want an extended bumper-to-bumper warranty.
faygen: (FAY - gen; n) the small plastic cap used to cover the cut ends of DIY wire closet shelving
Post a Comment