Healthcare Question
A good friend of mine (who is an obama supporter) put this forth after having watched this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPq6_7AFsp4
"Let's say you had a medical problem in the past, something not too terrible but not something you can get rid of, high blood pressure or something. You had insurance and everything was fine but then you go without insurance, are uncovered for a bit, but then decide it would be wise to get insurance again since you are getting older and all that.
When you check into it, the companies see that you had that preexisting condition and simply either refuse to cover it, or just want to charge you $500/month for coverage BUT if you had never had that break in coverage, you would have gotten that insurance without any problem at all. THAT is screwed up and THAT is something that should be changed.
The argument in the video about car insurance is somewhat silly since cars are optional, while, in many cases, health care is not. Can't pay for that car insurance? Ride a bike! Can't pay for that double bi pass surgery? Die!
While i'm not really sure a full gov't-run thing is the answer, there is no doubt in my mind that there are some serious reforms that need to take place"
My question posed to the forum is this:
How would the free market handle this situation better than having the government involved?
Risky customers
deserve higher prices. Our system now caters to the fat and unhealthy. If you have a health issues not related to obesity you pay too much and get too little. Get the government out and risk is payed for by the risk takers (the obese and unhealthy).
2 comments
1. If this were really insurance, this type of problem would be paid for out of your own pocket. If everyone had to use an HSA account to pay for blood pressure meds, these meds would be dirt cheap. The insurance is for large/catastrophic expenses. Taking the insurance out of the loop for minor medical problems would drastically decrease administrative costs to the doctors and the free market would push the prices way down for things like meds, x-rays, mri's, PT, chiropractic, checkups, blood work, etc.
2. Most "not terrible problems" like high blood pressure can be taken care of with supplements, change in diet, exercise, and weightloss. even adult onset diabetes (one of the biggest health problems in America) can be improved or reversed with proper diet.
We don't know, because we haven't had a free market...
since the Gunverment started regulating health care. With no cap on lawsuits, malpractice insurance is ever rising-another effect of a devaluing dollar and more aggressive lawyers. Here's a few good reason's the Gunverment shouldn't be involved on health care:
1)Taxes will go up.
2) In everyone of the plans, young healthy workers and the wealthy (cutoff point unknown) will subsidize everyone else.
3) Whatever passes will cost far more, perhaps double or triple whatever low-ball estimates Congress comes up with.
4) When was the last time the government wrung inefficiencies out of anything? Medicare is plagued with waste and fraud. So is Social Security, the Post Office, etc. Everything the Gov’t gets involved with goes bankrupt.
“The only reason for a government service is precisely to provide financial support for an operation that is otherwise unsustainable, or else there would be no point in the government’s involvement at all.”-Lew Rockwell
Charity
Hi NeoConned,
A "free market" solution of allowing charitable organizations to support those without health care would likely be better than a federal government mandated solution. Although I think it is unethical for those with financial means not to give to charitable causes, I also believe it is unethical for government to take a person's property against their will in order to pay for someone else's health care (government's main and lawful role should be to protect individuals from being murdered or robbed/defrauded).
Government run programs tend to be more wasteful and prone to corruption since they are not dealing with their own money. I also think that allowing the government to take control of individuals' health care adds to our risk of losing our liberty should the government become tyrannical (I for one don't understand why this issue is a federal one -- it should be left to the States, imho).
Finally, when government takes control of a social service, individuals can be denied an opportunity to be charitable, which may cause society to become less virtuous.
Right On
When the government stops stealing half of everything we earn, we'll have twice as much money to help family and friends and the occasional stranger as well.
I read that someone did a study of peoples' brains which showed that the pleasure centers "light up" when a person gives to a charitable cause, but the pleasure centers do not light up when a person pays taxes.
Government not only hurts the indigent by siphoning off funds which are earmarked for the poor through administrative costs, they also steal from the taxpayer the pure joy of giving to those in need.
Ron Paul Explorer: The All Paul Search Engine