Four-Step Healthcare Solution

[NickD 203]

I don't agree with Hans-Hermann Hoppe on this issue, deregulation of the health insurance companies under Reagan started this entire problem only getting worse.

Bottom line is that we not only have to pay for our medical expenses, but a huge sum of that expense goes to these parasitic health insurance companies. And they have gotten to the point where it's them that determine if a medical procedure is performed more so than the patient or the doctor.

All we have to do is to turn back to the pre-Reagan days, and also reinstitute our anti-trust laws as well. Also set limits on malpractice, while air sea rescue may say we put no value on the human life, Wal-Mart and Macs says you are only worth around five bucks an hour. Cutting off the wrong leg is certainly malpractice and extremely rare, but suing a doctor for not running zillion tests if you walk in with a cold is really getting carried away.

If a patient wants to pay out of pocket for those zillion tests, would be a different story, but if his doctor still refuses, has the option to find another doctor. Malpractice was never an issue before, but our government made it an issue, just more expense for the rest of us. Maybe because congress is mostly attorneys wanting to give other attorney means to get super rich.

[rebeccajo 14]

In general, I would imagine American's feel that way too, they just can't get their heads around a reasonable way to provide that. What we have now though, just stinks. Almost anything would be better

A friend's mom was diagnosed with cancer a few days ago. She's going into surgery on Monday.

How long would she have to wait for it in the UK or Canada?

How long would she have to wait if she couldn't afford to have health insurance?

She wouldn't have to wait without health insurance either.

She'd receive the treatment and then get to worry about how to pay for it during her recovery.

[rebeccajo 14]

I was admitted to hospital immediately for ovarian cysts. I don't know anyone who has had urgent care delayed. The longest delays are for elective surgery. My aunt had to wait about 6 months for cataract surgery but she had both eyes done with a minimum of delay between each surgery and is doing great. In the US she could not have afforded to have that fixed, period. Worse in the US she would now be blind and relying on others to care for her, at a cost. In the UK she is still living alone taking care of herself. I am sure we know which is cheaper.

Whereas there is an uninsured young man in the US who had a cataract removed from one eye and now has $17K in bills to pay.

He sees great out of that one eye while he works on cars trying to pay off the bill and come up with the money for the second procedure.

[rebeccajo 14]

With all the talk of public health insurance, this particular remains pertinent.

3. Deregulate the health insurance industry. Private enterprise can offer insurance against events over whose outcome the insured possesses no control. One cannot insure oneself against suicide or bankruptcy, for example, because it is in one's own hands to bring these events about.

Because a person's health, or lack of it, lies increasingly within his own control, many, if not most health risks, are actually uninsurable. "Insurance" against risks whose likelihood an individual can systematically influence falls within that person's own responsibility.

All insurance, moreover, involves the pooling of individual risks. It implies that insurers pay more to some and less to others. But no one knows in advance, and with certainty, who the "winners" and "losers" will be. "Winners" and "losers" are distributed randomly, and the resulting income redistribution is unsystematic. If "winners" or "losers" could be systematically predicted, "losers" would not want to pool their risk with "winners," but with other "losers," because this would lower their insurance costs. I would not want to pool my personal accident risks with those of professional football players, for instance, but exclusively with those of people in circumstances similar to my own, at lower costs.

Because of legal restrictions on the health insurers' right of refusal--to exclude any individual risk as uninsurable--the present health-insurance system is only partly concerned with insurance. The industry cannot discriminate freely among different groups' risks.

As a result, health insurers cover a multitude of uninnsurable risks, alongside, and pooled with, genuine insurance risks. They do not discriminate among various groups of people which pose significantly different insurance risks. The industry thus runs a system of income redistribution--benefiting irresponsible actors and high-risk groups at the expense of responsible individuals and low risk groups. Accordingly the industry's prices are high and ballooning.

To deregulate the industry means to restore it to unrestricted freedom of contract: to allow a health insurer to offer any contract whatsoever, to include or exclude any risk, and to discriminate among any groups of individuals. Uninsurable risks would lose coverage, the variety of insurance policies for the remaining coverage would increase, and price differentials would reflect genuine insurance risks. On average, prices would drastically fall. And the reform would restore individual responsibility in health care.

Matt -

That's pie in the sky as long as you have a system where workers form the insurance pool.

[mRx 16]

With all the talk of public health insurance, this particular remains pertinent.

3. Deregulate the health insurance industry. Private enterprise can offer insurance against events over whose outcome the insured possesses no control. One cannot insure oneself against suicide or bankruptcy, for example, because it is in one's own hands to bring these events about.

Because a person's health, or lack of it, lies increasingly within his own control, many, if not most health risks, are actually uninsurable. "Insurance" against risks whose likelihood an individual can systematically influence falls within that person's own responsibility.

All insurance, moreover, involves the pooling of individual risks. It implies that insurers pay more to some and less to others. But no one knows in advance, and with certainty, who the "winners" and "losers" will be. "Winners" and "losers" are distributed randomly, and the resulting income redistribution is unsystematic. If "winners" or "losers" could be systematically predicted, "losers" would not want to pool their risk with "winners," but with other "losers," because this would lower their insurance costs. I would not want to pool my personal accident risks with those of professional football players, for instance, but exclusively with those of people in circumstances similar to my own, at lower costs.

Because of legal restrictions on the health insurers' right of refusal--to exclude any individual risk as uninsurable--the present health-insurance system is only partly concerned with insurance. The industry cannot discriminate freely among different groups' risks.

As a result, health insurers cover a multitude of uninnsurable risks, alongside, and pooled with, genuine insurance risks. They do not discriminate among various groups of people which pose significantly different insurance risks. The industry thus runs a system of income redistribution--benefiting irresponsible actors and high-risk groups at the expense of responsible individuals and low risk groups. Accordingly the industry's prices are high and ballooning.

To deregulate the industry means to restore it to unrestricted freedom of contract: to allow a health insurer to offer any contract whatsoever, to include or exclude any risk, and to discriminate among any groups of individuals. Uninsurable risks would lose coverage, the variety of insurance policies for the remaining coverage would increase, and price differentials would reflect genuine insurance risks. On average, prices would drastically fall. And the reform would restore individual responsibility in health care.

Matt -

That's pie in the sky as long as you have a system where workers form the insurance pool.

What does being a worker have to do with the process of insurance pooling? And what's pie in the sky about a system of insurance that involves hedging oneself against unforeseeable, unbearable risks? The current system shouldn't even be called "insurance", because it's not insuring anything.

It's truly sad that not everyone is identical with the same wonderful health condition. But we've seen the result of pooling unequal health conditions, while charging an equal premium. It's health redistribution from the healthy worker to the unhealthy worker. And this can't be denied.

[rebeccajo 14]

What does being a worker have to do with the process of insurance pooling? And what's pie in the sky about a system of insurance that involves hedging oneself against unforeseeable, unbearable risks? The current system shouldn't even be called "insurance", because it's not insuring anything.

It's truly sad that not everyone is identical with the same wonderful health condition. But we've seen the result of pooling unequal health conditions, while charging an equal premium. It's health redistribution from the healthy worker to the unhealthy worker. And this can't be denied.

Unless you expect employers to start screening applicants for health conditions, it has everything to do with it.

[mRx 16]

What does being a worker have to do with the process of insurance pooling? And what's pie in the sky about a system of insurance that involves hedging oneself against unforeseeable, unbearable risks? The current system shouldn't even be called "insurance", because it's not insuring anything.

It's truly sad that not everyone is identical with the same wonderful health condition. But we've seen the result of pooling unequal health conditions, while charging an equal premium. It's health redistribution from the healthy worker to the unhealthy worker. And this can't be denied.

Unless you expect employers to start screening applicants for health conditions, it has everything to do with it.

OK, I see what you're saying.

But why must employment be tangling with providing health insurance?

I can see insuring your employees against injuries sustained while on-duty, but providing general health insurance just doesn't seem like it should be an obligation of employers, does it?

[mawilson 2,133]

1. Eliminate all licensing requirements for medical schools, hospitals, pharmacies, and medical doctors and other health care personnel. Their supply would almost instantly increase, prices would fall, and a greater variety of health care services would appear on the market.

Yeah, brilliant idea.

Would you trust a doctor with a diploma from the Online Baptist Medical University of Mud Creek?

[mRx 16]

1. Eliminate all licensing requirements for medical schools, hospitals, pharmacies, and medical doctors and other health care personnel. Their supply would almost instantly increase, prices would fall, and a greater variety of health care services would appear on the market.

Yeah, brilliant idea.

Would you trust a doctor with a diploma from the Online Baptist Medical University of Mud Creek?

No. Would you?

[rebeccajo 14]

What does being a worker have to do with the process of insurance pooling? And what's pie in the sky about a system of insurance that involves hedging oneself against unforeseeable, unbearable risks? The current system shouldn't even be called "insurance", because it's not insuring anything.

It's truly sad that not everyone is identical with the same wonderful health condition. But we've seen the result of pooling unequal health conditions, while charging an equal premium. It's health redistribution from the healthy worker to the unhealthy worker. And this can't be denied.

Unless you expect employers to start screening applicants for health conditions, it has everything to do with it.

OK, I see what you're saying.

But why must employment be tangling with providing health insurance?

I can see insuring your employees against injuries sustained while on-duty, but providing general health insurance just doesn't seem like it should be an obligation of employers, does it?

It didn't used to be a 'tangle' and that's why business started doing it. It was a fairly inexpensive way to retain a loyal workforce and attract 'better' talent.

There are lots of things about health care in the US that worry me, not the least of which is the perception of the right that our present system of employer provided care works. I wonder if it ever occurs to people that insurance companies might not be solely to blame for risings deductibles; out of pocket limits; pre-existing clauses; yearly and lifetime maximums and the other "coverage avoidance" vehicles created in the last 25 years. Despite the perception of some that they are "earning" their health care through work in the same manner they earn their wages, a worker is only worth so much money. As business in the US struggle with keeping the total cost of retaining an employee down, health insurance companies have answered business through premium reduction that puts cost-share back on the worker.

People cry 'socialism' whenever talk turns to government single-payer. They fear the creation of a 'nanny state' where citizens are too dependent on government - a system where we are taxed to death to pay for needed services. They fear a government becoming 'too strong' by creating a situation where the citizens could never rebel against a corrupt leader. I'm sure many would disagree with me, but IMO the system we have now is merely dependency of a different sort. We count on our employers to pay us more than we are worth (to the bottom-line of the business) in order to provide something they have absolutely no obligation to provide. Since it's not an obligation, the 'benefit' of the workers labor is of an increasingly lesser value to him. Not only that, opportunites to change his lot by changing jobs are becoming fewer and far between.

Slavery, anyone?

Edited August 16, 2009 by rebeccajo

[mRx 16]

What does being a worker have to do with the process of insurance pooling? And what's pie in the sky about a system of insurance that involves hedging oneself against unforeseeable, unbearable risks? The current system shouldn't even be called "insurance", because it's not insuring anything.

It's truly sad that not everyone is identical with the same wonderful health condition. But we've seen the result of pooling unequal health conditions, while charging an equal premium. It's health redistribution from the healthy worker to the unhealthy worker. And this can't be denied.

Unless you expect employers to start screening applicants for health conditions, it has everything to do with it.

OK, I see what you're saying.

But why must employment be tangling with providing health insurance?

I can see insuring your employees against injuries sustained while on-duty, but providing general health insurance just doesn't seem like it should be an obligation of employers, does it?

It didn't used to be a 'tangle' and that's why business started doing it. It was a fairly inexpensive way to retain a loyal workforce and attract 'better' talent.

There are lots of things about health care in the US that worry me, not the least of which is the perception of the right that our present system of employer provided care works. I wonder if it ever occurs to people that insurance companies might not be solely to blame for risings deductibles; out of pocket limits; pre-existing clauses; yearly and lifetime maximums and the other "coverage avoidance" vehicles created in the last 25 years. Despite the perception of some that they are "earning" their health care through work in the same manner they earn their wages, a worker is only worth so much money. As business in the US struggle with keeping the total cost of retaining an employee down, health insurance companies have answered business through premium reduction that puts cost-share back on the worker.

People cry 'socialism' whenever talk turns to government single-payer. They fear the creation of a 'nanny state' where citizens are too dependent on government - a system where we are taxed to death to pay for needed services. They fear a government becoming 'too strong' by creating a situation where the citizens could never rebel against a corrupt leader. I'm sure many would disagree with me, but IMO the system we have now is merely dependency of a different sort. We count on our employers to pay us more than we are worth (to the bottom-line of the business) in order to provide something they have absolutely no obligation to provide. Since it's not an obligation, the 'benefit' of the workers labor is of an increasingly lesser value to him. Not only that, opportunites to change his lot by changing jobs are becoming fewer and far between.

Slavery, anyone?

I totally agree with you that our healthcare system is out of control. I will be losing my healthcare benefits next month, so I'm especially worried about the hamstrung state of things. It's going to affect me just as much as anyone else.

The problem with this legislation that purports to "make healthcare more affordable to Americans" is that, in reality, it will do no such thing. It will merely masks the costs by communizing them, either by insane new tax ideas, or by deficit. It's like replacing the smoke alarm in a burning house; It may silence the warnings, but it won't put out the fire.

I truly believe the steps outlined in the OP will do far more good to address the root problem than any fancy pen magic that Washington can conjure up.

There has been a significant amount of Democratic-led legislation passed over the years with the aim of addressing the rising costs of healthcare. They simply don't work. I think it's time for a real change.

[Tahoma 2,292]

Hi everyone...

I thought you might want to take a look at some other ideas from Matt's hero, anarcho-libertarian Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

From "Democracy: The God That Failed" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe:

"There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They- the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism- will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order."

I wonder who will do the removing. Do you think we can get Matt and Hans to volunteer?

Wait...I may have found an answer. It's in "Natural Order, State, and Looting" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe:

"Mankind being what it is, murderers, robbers, thieves, thugs, and con artists will always exist. However, their anti-social behavior is typically suppressed by means of armed self-defense and mutual assistance and insurance arrangements."

More from people-person Hans-Hermann Hoppe:

"As a result of subsidizing the malingerers, the neurotics, the careless, the alcoholics, the drug addicts, the Aids-infected, and the physically and mentally challenged through insurance regulation and compulsory health insurance, there will be more illness, malingering, neuroticism, carelessness, alcoholism, drug addiction, Aids infection, and physical and mental retardation."

Instead of physically removing these losers from society, the idea here is to use a kinder, gentler final solution.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe...what a guy!

~ Tahoma

[mRx 16]

Tahoma,

I just want you to know that I am so proud of your investigative skills that I have a treat for you:

I follow the Federal Reserve chart analysis of economist Gary North. But... I've read that he may possess some rather unsavory religious views. Perhaps you can use your wonderful debate skills to dig up completely unrelated beliefs to refute his economic analysis?

[Tahoma 2,292]

Tahoma,

I just want you to know that I am so proud of your investigative skills that I have a treat for you:

I follow the Federal Reserve chart analysis of economist Gary North. But... I've read that he may possess some rather unsavory religious views. Perhaps you can use your wonderful debate skills to dig up completely unrelated beliefs to refute his economic analysis?

Nice try at deflection, Matt. Sorry if the truth hurts.

It's interesting how you ignored Hoppe's bizarro-world comment regarding malingerers, neurotics, the careless, alcoholics, drug addicts, and the Aids-affected, as it certainly plays a part in his analysis of health care insurance.

Any further reading of Hoppe's views serves to provide context...like his admiration of Adolph Hitler's economic policy.

By the way, in your opinion, what are some of Hoppe's "unsavory views?"

[mRx 16]

Hmm.. Funny how writing "I am so proud of your investigative skills" is taken as anything but a concession to your point. No deflection here. A tad bit of comprehension is necessary.

My point completely flew over your head though; Let me be a bit more concrete: Judging the merit of a particular belief by attacking a completely unrelated belief makes you quite pathetic.

Any further reading of Hoppe's views serves to provide context...like his admiration of Adolph Hitler's economic policy.

I'd challenge you to show me one instance where Hoppe (or any Austrian economist, for that matter) shows anything but utter disgust for Hitler's Socialist economic policies.