Unconstitutionalcare

Desk, if you have problems with any of the "business savvy" I've expressed, please respond at the time, instead of taking a passive aggressive shot of this nature.

As to insurance, I understand it perfectly.

And, government would want insurers to asses people in ways that are not sound by any actuarial measure.

As Dick points out, the current, employee based system is already flawed. A healthy 22-year-old male, enrolled in his employer based plan, is not judged on his own risk. Rather, he's included in a "risk pool". That's not fair.

It will get less and less fair as "pools" get larger and larger. If companies opt out, and you end up in Government pools -- and we all will eventually -- it will just become another entitlement program funded by a tax.

It will not resemble insurance at all.

 

What's wrong with the systems in Germany or Switzerland?

 

To define the health care market as "completely broken" is way at odds with the facts. Is the market, as it is currently configured, efficient (in the economic sense)? Most would argue, no, it is not efficient (as in, we can conceive of alternate approaches that might make some market participants better off without making any participants worse off). Mere inefficiency does not mean that government must or even should intervene, though, because there is the real risk that post-intervention things will be even worse.

 

Well, if the private companies aren't going to fix it, then who will?

Why can't we combine the best aspects of our system with some aspects of Europe, so that everyone can benefit?

 

Because that ultimately doesn't work. Government programs don't stop, they just get bigger. A government-run healthcare will eventually include the government actually selling plans, and they'll have to be cheaper than private plans or nobody will buy them. So with the private insurers being unable to compete, they'll stop doing business. Eventually, government care will be the only option. No thank you. If you think healthcare is expensive and frustrating now, just wait until it's free.

 

You're suggesting that it's not fair that 22-year-olds are included in a risk pool, which is the fundamental underpinning of insurance. What you are then by extension suggesting is that people should be charged for insurance based on their level of risk.

So someone with a chronic condition outside of their control pays 10 times as much, because their medication will cost the insurer more than that 22-year-old. Same with those over 50, women (they can get pregnant, after all, and that's not cheap), etc.

And frankly, all it takes is that 22-year-old stepping off a curb the wrong way and breaking an ankle, and all of a sudden the price he's paying is more than fair.

So yeah. Your ideas are absurd. If they weren't, that 22-year-old would be able to get proper insurance (and not one of these bullshit high-deductible plans) for less than an arm and a leg.

 

I had an appointment just this morning to have my eyes checked, under the free health care system here. I was in and out in under 20 minutes. I was served by a friendly nurse and a friendly technician, who explained what they were doing and completed the evaluation quickly and efficiently. And when I was done, I walked out the door, rather than stopping by the front desk while someone worked out a co-pay.

Sometime in the next week, I'll get the results in the mail. No bill, no unexpected charges, no $7 fees for tissues.

For that, I'll gladly continue to pay my National Insurance contribution, which, while it's not free, I'll bet is lower than your health insurance premium.

 

Do you know how various healthcare schemes work in Europe, or in Canada?

 

Every "fix" of the system is designed to further insulate the consumer of health care from the actual cost.

That won't make people live any healthier and it won't address demand for services.

The only way to control costs at that point will be to ration care or cap payments to doctors. Neither will result in better health care.

The consumer needs to bear some portion of the cost.

 

What price on God's green Earth should they be charged?

 

Exactly. The 22-year-old should have his rates determined by the risk that he steps in front of a bus.

That risk is pretty low. Set the rate accordingly.

 

I hate to base arguments on "fair," because that's just essentially a subjective moral argument, and typically goes nowhere. It's not really an argument. But ...

YF, the alternative is even less "fair." Again, individuals know things about themselves that the insurer does not. The insurer knows this, and jacks up the insurance rate to compensate. At that point, others opt out because the rate is no longer efficient for them. And so on and so forth. Total market failure.