21–30 of 64 posts
It also clearly demonstrates one of the reasons why markets alone are simply not sufficient/appropriate for some problems. The rest of the developed countries outside of the US have long understood this with respect to health care.
This article demonstrates a very common mistake: People think health insurance covers health bills. It doesn't. It covers unexpected health bills, which is a very different thing. Any type of situation that is expected to happen can not be covered by insurance, it needs to be covered by savings instead. However many people want insurance premiums to be a type of forced savings plan, which is why there is such a huge…
I came here to say just this. In the United States, though, we use "Insurance" to refer to a very expensive form of prepaid health plan. We keep costs up by making laws that prevent employees from knowing how much their prepaid health plan costs. Just in case people might want to react to the high costs by not purchasing a plan, in the near future everyone in the U.S. will be required by law to purchase a prepaid hea…
It's not hard to make a list of "freedoms" we're mostly happy that people give up: the "freedom" to drive 100mph through school zones, the "freedom" to sell patent medicines with Pfizer branding on it, the "freedom" to set tire fires on our lawns. Those "freedoms" are respectively outweighed by the cost of collisions, of medical fraud, and of toxic and repulsive clouds of smoke.
When societies adopt single-payer health care systems, they're expressing a judgement that the "freedom" to take individual control over how to finance health care at the lowest possible price is outweighed by the cost to society of the uncertainty of health care costs.
And, setting aside principle for a moment, your health & well being is in fact one of the most important uncertainties in your life. You could be hit by a bus tomorrow, or stricken with a disease that outstrips your ability to pay for care. With the exception of a tiny, tiny fraction of people in society, nobody can truly provide an assurance of their ability to provide for their own care. So, to bring the principle back into the picture: if you're ideologically opposed to single-payer or socialized or mandated health insurance, it would seem that you must also support the idea that people who can't pay for their care must be denied care.
There's a wide variety of pragmatic objections to single-payer insurance, many of which are probably valid. But if we're going to bring "freedom" and "choice" into the picture --- ideology, in other words --- we should be clear about what the tradeoffs are.
Risk carries an element of unpredictability. If a scenario is predictable, there is no risk to be shared, ergo by definition a scenario with little risk (e.g. known diagnosis and treatment plan) is absolutely and unsurprisingly not fitting for insurance.
This article demonstrates a very common mistake: People think health insurance covers health bills. It doesn't. It covers unexpected health bills, which is a very different thing. Any type of situation that is expected to happen can not be covered by insurance, it needs to be covered by savings instead. However many people want insurance premiums to be a type of forced savings plan, which is why there is such a huge…
In the US the insurance companies also negotiate the costs with various heath care providers. It's possible to pay 6,000$ / year in premiums, never hit your deductible so the insurance company does not pay anything out of pocket and still save money .
Do 300M people really have to negotiate their own insurance, and research carefully all the terms and conditions and so on?
I read this yesterday and was unimpressed; it seems that the finding here is "adverse selection", which is more or less the classic canonical problem in insurance. Did I miss something?
Quoting from the article: Hendren didn’t invent the idea of markets falling apart because customers know something that companies don’t. Nobel prizes were awarded to a trio of economists in 2001 for developing this idea of adverse selection in the 1970s. But his use of the concept may at least partly resolve the puzzle of why those with pre-existing conditions can’t get insurance.
Another quote: This individual mandate is a natural fix to the problem of adverse selection in health insurance: It keeps the lowest-cost participants from opting out, and as a result the market doesn’t unravel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I came here to say just this. In the United States, though, we use "Insurance" to refer to a very expensive form of prepaid health plan. We keep costs up by making laws that prevent employees from knowing how much their prepaid health plan costs. Just in case people might want to react to the high costs by not purchasing a plan, in the near future everyone in the U.S. will be required by law to purchase a prepaid hea…
It's the nature of the social contract that we give up certain freedoms to gain the benefits of society; that's what contracts do: they bind us. It's not hard to make a list of "freedoms" we're mostly happy that people give up: the "freedom" to drive 100mph through school zones, the "freedom" to sell patent medicines with Pfizer branding on it, the "freedom" to set tire fires on our lawns. Those "freedoms" are respec…
This article demonstrates a very common mistake: People think health insurance covers health bills. It doesn't. It covers unexpected health bills, which is a very different thing. Any type of situation that is expected to happen can not be covered by insurance, it needs to be covered by savings instead. However many people want insurance premiums to be a type of forced savings plan, which is why there is such a huge…
Not to be pedantic but I will stand on a soapbox for a moment: I'd also point out that we all have the ability to care for our health. Health care is a daily activity which requires no insurance, and often no cost.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I came here to say just this. In the United States, though, we use "Insurance" to refer to a very expensive form of prepaid health plan. We keep costs up by making laws that prevent employees from knowing how much their prepaid health plan costs. Just in case people might want to react to the high costs by not purchasing a plan, in the near future everyone in the U.S. will be required by law to purchase a prepaid hea…
It's the nature of the social contract that we give up certain freedoms to gain the benefits of society; that's what contracts do: they bind us. It's not hard to make a list of "freedoms" we're mostly happy that people give up: the "freedom" to drive 100mph through school zones, the "freedom" to sell patent medicines with Pfizer branding on it, the "freedom" to set tire fires on our lawns. Those "freedoms" are respec…
Setting aside the question of market vs. socialized health care, it doesn't take much observation to realize that this is a very bad system. It both sweeps costs under the carpet and removes consumer choice from the equation, thereby severely reducing the extent to which health insurance companies must compete on both cost and quality of service.
Think your company's group plan is too expensive? Well, you're free to drop out of it if you want. Of course, the money they were spending on your health insurance won't get added to your salary when you do, so ultimately whatever you find will end up being even more expensive.
Pissed off because your health insurance company screwed you over? Well, you've got pretty much the same "my way or the highway" option.
What a lot of folks fail to realize is, just because we don't have a socialized system doesn't mean we have a market system. What we actually have is a bastard system that offers the benefits of neither, plus some downsides that are uniquely its own.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the nature of the social contract that we give up certain freedoms to gain the benefits of society; that's what contracts do: they bind us. It's not hard to make a list of "freedoms" we're mostly happy that people give up: the "freedom" to drive 100mph through school zones, the "freedom" to sell patent medicines with Pfizer branding on it, the "freedom" to set tire fires on our lawns. Those "freedoms" are respec…
Freedom and choice cannot be broadly lumped into "ideology". Freedom and choice are integral parts of how markets function. To completely remove freedom and choice from the healthcare debate means that there should be ONE BEST solution. The reason why I value my freedom to make my own decisions about health care is because I do not think that a universal single payer system is the ONE BEST solution.