Medical coverage through employers only came about as a standard practice after the New Deal. Prior to that, it was standard practice to pay for medical care like any other commodity. The introduction of the 3rd-party payer has encouraged the consumers to be less judicious with their health care decisions. Then the demand for care goes up, so must the prices. This means the health insurance premiums have to go up, and the cycle continues.
If we would just return to a system where you paid for your own preventative care out-of-pocket and had coverage for catastrophic events (like auto insurance), none of this would really be an issue.
I see you didn’t address your misunderstanding of the Declaration of Independence.
I have no problem paying taxes. At a young age, I was instilled with the attitude that paying taxes is a sign of prosperity.
However, that has nothing to do with paying more taxes or unjust taxes because of someone’s illiterate misinterpretation of something Thomas Jefferson wrote. This is ironic considering Jefferson believed in the independent self-sufficient farmer and small limited government (his renegade purchase of Louisiana Territory notwithstanding.)
The best arguments for UHC must rely on economic and mathematical reasoning. There are already good factors based on economic reasoning alone; they just need to be adjusted to account for shifting demographics and political abuse.
On the other hand, to justify UHC by misreading 200 year old documents looks ridiculous and childish. Just a few months ago, someone tried to support UHC through a bizarre reading of “due process” in the 14th Amendment. Guys, stick with the economic reasonings and leave the DOI and Constitution out of it.
That’s right, that IS how insurance works, even health insurance.
So under the current system, most hard working Americans are able to get into a group health plan through their employer, which does not exclude pre-existing conditions.
After retirement though, what is someone supposed to do? Ideally you’d have saved a portion of your salary, and account for needing health insurance, along with living expenses and the desire you live your retirement dream.
But we’re talking about insurance. Right now I see a system the excludes pre-existing conditions, and high risk individuals–also known as senior citizens.
After you wreck that Mercedes, you’re premiums are going to go up, you become higher risk. Wreck another and it goes up again. As you keep wrecking them eventually your premium will get so high that you can’t afford it. OR your insurance company is simply going to drop you as high risk.
So then what? If it’s auto insurance you can take the bus or higher a driver. If it’s health insurance you’re going to go bankrupt and die.
I was recently told to read this article about the importance of hand washing. But what stood out was the cost of treatment: $636,687.75.
Without getting too personal, is your retirement plan prepared for that sort of expense?
And for everyone else, I don’t care if health insurance is a right or not, or who is supposed to pay for it. What I want to know is the HOW. How are seniors supposed to get health care? Has anyone over 55+ tried to get a private policy? (I did see one response, thanks).
What is the conservative answer to this question? And to be just a bit more snarky, Medicare was expected to cost $9billion in 1990, but they were way off. Do you think YOU could more accurately predict your health care expenses in 30 years?
And back then doctors took chickens as payment. Hard to pay for a beautiful new clinic with chickens.
OTOH, back in the 30s and before doctors couldn’t really cure much. Antibiotics really were a game changer because doctors could do more without so much worry about infection.
Uh, sure, and we can go back to the standard of care that existed BEFORE the New Deal. Like it or not, the health care industry has changed and nothing is going to put that genie back in the bottle. At this stage in the game, you simply can not afford to pay out of pocket for health care expenses. Unless of course you’re sitting on $636,687.75 in cash and okay spending it all on a few nights in the ICU.
Yep. They sometimes accepted chickens as payment. Sometimes money. Sometimes home repairs. Because that was what was agreed to by the consumer & provider in a free-market system. The doctor & patient had a friendly relationship on a much more personal level than they do now.
I submit to you that the reason the costs of said visit to the ICU are so high are mostly because of the 3rd-party payer system that we have. Do you sincerely think that the cost would be that high if it was to be paid out-of-pocket? How about the $15 Tylenol and the $200 bag of saline solution? Same reason college costs are increasing so much faster than inflation–when the expectation of the student loan & grant programs are there, the students don’t feel the pinch and the colleges expect that they’ll get the tuition anyway. The costs rise beyond reason.
Because I don’t care about a $15 tylenol. I see $3000 for a single round chemotherapy drugs, and a $100,000 used MRI (New is in the $3-4million range), and a technician to run it, and a physician to read/interpret the result, a building to house all that…blaming the third party payer system is a long way down the list of problems.
And personally, I think the $15 tylenol is the result of the 14 people before you that didn’t/couldn’t pay for their treatment. But that’s another issue.
So far, we have two options for seniors: get a job that provides retirement health coverage (I actually assume this would be more common without medicare but ultimately lead to a whole slew of new problems), or accept 1930s style health care.
I can’t help but feel conservatives in the US are woefully unaware of how expensive both private insurance, and the cost of treatment, are for seniors. Does anyone know how much a 30 year old would have to save in order to have $636,687.75 a year for medical expenses?
I was just playing with a retirement calculator: a 30 year old saving 10% of his $80,000 salary for 35 years would have $1.2 million. That would get you 2 of those treatments leaving you with nothing left over.
Hmmm. Let’s try that again, with a little less selective quoting.
Yes, now we see that it’s true… we have already adopted a public policy that pays for certain, but not all, poor people. Those were the rules under which he paid, and he’s not eligible under those rules. Having paid under one set of rules, he now argues that the rules should change.
But you’re lumping in generic “poor” and lazily equating it to “Medicaid qualifying poor” when those things are different.
Well, yes. But I accept it. My problem is that I’m forced to subsidize a program that I won’t ever benefit from. But there are many such programs. They’re water under the bridge. I seek now to prevent the addition of yet another program to that list. I’d rather be responsible for my own and my family’s fate, and let you be responsible for you and your family. You want us all to act as though we’re one big family.
When you get in a car accident, you will get a huge increase in insurance premiums. in a short time they recoup their costs and more. You will remain high risk until they are making profits.
You’ve asked a very interesting and difficult question. Which I’m not going to answer exactly. :). But I’ll provide a start that I (or others) can build on later
In a world where Medicare has never existed and where health insurance is not so intricately tied to employment (due to tax incentives), I could imagine companies offering lifetime combined health and life insurance. perhaps it would convert into only health insurance after 65.
Enlightened self-interest. Personally I don’t care what happens to you or your family. You are unimportant to me when I’m feeling charitable. But if a universal health care system resulted in lower costs for me, I’d support it. Neither you nor your opinion matters to me at all.
The regulations for those companies would have to be huge. Imagine if you “invest” in insurance for years - and seldom need it. At 50 you are diagnosed with a serious illness that requires a lot of management (and related expense) and at 51, your insurance company goes under.
GM tried the “insurance for life” idea and got the projections terribly wrong (along with the pension idea)
Granted, the same argument could be made that the U.S. government could go bankrupt - but at least then you wouldn’t be at the management of a company that looked really solid when you were 22 years old to support your expenses when you are 70.
We’re not talking about best care, we’re talking about care adequate to keep people alive. That doesn’t mean swanky private rooms., unless you think someone has proposed this.
But you seem a bit unclear on the concept of insurance. If your insurance company will pay at most what you pay in, and often less, there is no reason in the world to get insurance. What if you pay in $5,000 a month, but have a $50,000 disease two months after starting? Do you go on charity then? Insurance is about leveling risks, which your system doesn’t do. Clearly insurance is seen as a benefit to society as a whole, and has won over your system in the market, for reasons which should be obvious.
Government involvement just provides insurance to those who cannot afford it. The idea was to force people gaming the system to pay through a tax on those who didn’t and could afford to, btw.
Now, if you are of the “let them die” persuasion, there is not much more to say. It would be interesting to have a poll matching religion with attitude about health care for the poor.
This would be true if the majority of people were under indemnity plans. However, for the last 30 years, the shift has been towards managed care plans, and managed care plans do attempt to bargain down rates (they have to, in order to make profit). I’ve seen figures as high as 90% for how many people who have insurance are now under managed care plans (although I won’t defend that figure, since it depends on how you define managed care).
Regardless, the trend is towards managed care plans and away from indemnity insurance plans. In order for your theory to make sense, you have to explain how it is that during a time period where the trend is towards managed care plans, medical costs have continued to rise.
I’ll also point out that comparing health care to other commodities is crap economics. Large portions of the health care market have inelastic supply/demand curves and are subject to bilateral monopolies or other monopolistic or oligarchic behavior. You can’t make free comparisons between health care markets and other markets.
Let us say there is a plan for health care. EVERYONE pays into it. EVERYONE can claim the same benefits. It can NEVER be taken away due to an illness or pre-existing condition or job loss.
There. We ALL pay into a giant box, we can ALL withdraw health care from it. Would that be so terrible?
As a bonus, since we’d all be in the same system for life there really would be incentives to promote preventive care and treat problems early, when they are most likely to cost the least.
But the problem with such an approach is that it quickly transforms itself into an entitlement. “You don’t have a right to this, but you’re getting it to lower all our costs,” won’t last a generation before it is categorized along with all the other things that “of course” an “enlightened society” provides its members.