Pre-existing conditions [Forum member needs help in debate]

[PrairieQueen]

I have read a lot of the threads and some other information regarding health care reform.

One area I am still having problems reconciling with pre-existing conditions. How would the free market handle this?


Do you really think insurance companies would offer insurance at affordable rates to those with pre-exiting conditions?

Also, I am stuck in a debate on another forum. She is from Canada and claims that it if it a totally gov't run program that is "not-for-profit" (similar to Canada) with basically no insurance company wanting to make a profit then no one would be denied life saving treatment. Help. I am not sure how to answer.

Thanks!

[LibertyEagle]

bump

[acptulsa]

You really like to ask the tough ones, don't you? Kudos for even tackling it.

Well, I suggest you, one, point out that the government has been allowing the insurance companies to collude for years now, and that they amount to a monopoly. Furthermore, they've been driving up the costs of medical care in the process, whether they want to or not.

I've been meaning to post some quotes from my Will Rogers thread in the Oklahoma subforum for a few days; guess I should get around to it. He had a gall bladder problem in 1927 and wrote a book about it. It points up some problems with health care then, and some strong points about it which have become weak points today. One of those is, costs have indeed gone up disproportionally over the years. Do we blame the insurance companies? The malpractice lawyers? Medicare? I'm inclined to say yes, yes and yes.

To put the matter simply, a free market will find a way to meet a need if there's any conceivable way to make a penny or two doing it. Exactly how that would happen in the case you mention, though, I confess I do not know.

At the very least, I can assure you of two things. One, nationalized health care won't improve things for everyone. And two, even if such things are deemed by society to be necessary in this day and age, doing it on the state or local level will be far, far less inefficient. Furthermore, charity would step up to the plate even if no one else did, and if health care weren't so bloated charity could do a fine job of it.

Back in the 'Old West', those communities that had no insurance companies had 'barn raisings'--and the Amish still do.

[PaulaGem]

I have read a lot of the threads and some other information regarding health care reform.

One area I am still having problems reconciling with pre-existing conditions. How would the free market handle this?


Do you really think insurance companies would offer insurance at affordable rates to those with pre-exiting conditions?

Also, I am stuck in a debate on another forum. She is from Canada and claims that it if it a totally gov't run program that is "not-for-profit" (similar to Canada) with basically no insurance company wanting to make a profit then no one would be denied life saving treatment. Help. I am not sure how to answer.

Thanks!

Colorado has a good plan, unfortunately they are projecting a funding shortfall in the next couple of years.

They give a tax credit to companies who donate to the Cover Colorado fund. Pacificare handles the insurance. The rate is 125% of the average rate for anyone turned down or rated up by two ore more companies. Low income discount brings that down.

Unfortunately, a lot of people don't know about it. I bless the independent agent that told me he didn't have a policy he could sell be in good conscience and I should just switch to Cover Colorado. If he hadn't done that about 10 years ago I would be uninsured.

There are options, you just have to think outside of the box. Also note if insurance is sold to individuals at a fair price when they are young and they don't lose it when they switch jobs or become self employed there will be fewer issues with "pre-exsiting contitions".

[PrairieQueen]

You really like to ask the tough ones, don't you? Kudos for even tackling it.

Well, I suggest you, one, point out that the government has been allowing the insurance companies to collude for years now, and that they amount to a monopoly. Furthermore, they've been driving up the costs of medical care in the process, whether they want to or not.

I did this already. No one is listening though. They keep going back to the "status quo" vs "UHC". But I will keep trying.

Problem is I am dealing with a group that thinks health care is a right and is not something anyone should be making a profit from.

[Acala]

Depends on what you mean by pre-existing condition.

Real insurance covers the risk of an improbable, random event occuring - like a house fire or a car accident or a ship wreck. It makes economic sense for a bunch of people to pool their risk of being a victim of such an unlikely event. They can each kick in a little money and that will cover the cost of the risk because only a small percentage of them will actually need a payout. And because none of them know which one of them will be the vicitm, they are all willing to pay in.

Contrast that with so called medical "insurance" that is required to cover expenses that will CERTAINLY occur - like checkups and so on - or that are voluntary - like pregnancy. These are not risks. So this is not really insurance and the economic model that makes insurance work in the market does not apply. Groups of people get no benefit from pooling when the payout is certain to occur for each. They are better off going it alone. (There may be benefits from negotiating as a group for better prices, but that is not an insurance concept, it is a group-buy concept).

The same is true of people who buy an insurance policy when the already have some kind of known recurring disease. If you KNOW you are going to need cancer treatment, that is not a risk. It is a known cost. The economics of insurance do not apply to known costs.

If you want a medical plan to cover known and voluntary expense, you need to forget the insurance model because it doesn't work. When you try and make insurance function like a pre-paid medical plan, you have problems because the insurance companies are going to try and eliminate KNOWN expenses and cover only risk because that is what REAL insurance is supposed to do.

People who already have suffered an illness and are certain to have ongoing expenses related to that illness cannot truly be insured for that illness because they already HAVE it. The expense is not a risk, it is a certainty. In a free market nobody is going to pool their risk of getting a particular disease with someone who already HAS the disaease. It isn't fair and doesn't make sense.

So what happens to a person who has recurring expenses from a known disease? They either pay for the treatment themselves or rely on charity. They may also be able to band together with people in a similar situation to get group buy discounts. Forcing insurance pools to take on KNOWN expenses is wrong, will require coercion, and will ultimately ruin the pool and deprive the participants of the valuable benefits of a true risk-pooling insurance system. "Insurance" that covers known and voluntary expenses isn't really insurance, it is a form of socialism disguised as insurance and a free market will not do it. When government forces insurers to take on pre-existing conditions with know expenses, what it is really doing is forcing the other insureds to pay for those expenses. And, of course, insurance premiums go up.

What about people who have had an illness in the past and may or may not have a recurrence? A free market would offer them insurance at a rate adjusted to reflect the chances of a recurrence. If the chance was very high and the cost of treatment was very high, they could probably not afford coverage.

The good news is that a truly free market in health care would cause prices to drop so dramatically that healthcare would be MUCH more affordable.

The bad news is that sometimes bad things happen to people, including but not limited to, getting sick and dying. And that does not justify stealing other people's property.

[acptulsa]

I did this already. No one is listening though. They keep going back to the "status quo" vs "UHC". But I will keep trying.

Problem is I am dealing with a group that thinks health care is a right and is not something anyone should be making a profit from.

Yeah, but companies like profits. Without them they fail. And with subsidies they go crooked, which is no boon to (in this case) the sick.

Don't know how you can get their attention, save by agreeing that the system we have isn't worth $#!+. Perhaps the wiser course would be to demonstrate to them that they're being led down the garden path:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ight=baby+seal

If you're going to go to the trouble to improve something, why not actually improve it?

[dannno]

This might help you brush up on some free market concepts related to the debate you are about to pursue.


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=209240

[TastyWheat]

Whatever "solutions" the free market has to help those with pre-existing conditions I doubt they'll take effect overnight, but in a free market these are more likely to happen:

• If health care, not health insurance, is cheaper then those with pre-existing conditions will be better able to pay out-of-pocket for medical expenses.
• If insurance pools are bigger, nationwide rather than statewide, insurance companies may be more likely to accept individuals with pre-existing condtiions.
• If restrictions are reduced on non-profit health organizations there may be ones that specifically treat those that are uninsured because of pre-existing conditions.

[Bruno]

I did this already. No one is listening though. They keep going back to the "status quo" vs "UHC". But I will keep trying.

Problem is I am dealing with a group that thinks health care is a right and is not something anyone should be making a profit from.

Then those saying that should be in school to become doctors and provide their services for free. If there were enough liberals who actually practiced what they preached, we would have a nation flooded with doctors and nurses providing free and discounted services, after they have spent a decade in school learning how to treat patients.

Millionaires like Al Gore should be opening up free clinics to ensure people's "right" to free care.

Ask them to show to you where that right is guaranteed. If health care is a right, what other "rights" have we not addressed?

If health care is a right (when others have to go to years of school to know how to treat patients, and provide services at a cost guaranteed by the government to be "affordable"), so is the right to food. I love a good steak. Government should provide steak to me at an affordable cost, and if I can't afford it, for free. For life.

[PrairieQueen]

Also note if insurance is sold to individuals at a fair price when they are young and they don't lose it when they switch jobs or become self employed there will be fewer issues with "pre-exsiting contitions".

Ahh, and fewer without insurance altogether who's care we would have to cover with tax payer money.

I keep trying to relate it back to car and home insurance which they have all agreed is affordable.

One member did say her family is being dropped by a home insurance policy because of chronic flooding in the basement problems, though. Then they argue that it is one thing for your home but not comparable for your life.

Thanks for the help so far.

[dannno]

I guess insurance isn't really designed for pre-existing condtions. It would be like getting fire insurance for my house after it has already been damaged by fire.. I already know what the damages are going to be, I already know it is going to happen because it already has. Insurance is based on probabilities of things occurring versus the cost of those occurrences. If I have diabetes and the medicine and supplies cost $140/month, why would an insurance company want to charge me any less than $140 to pay for this along with a regular monthly premium that would cover whatever costs my health might incur in the future?

So we can either keep our insanely high costs by getting the government involved and subsidizing the high medical costs, or we can return to a free market system and reduce medical costs substantially. That way people with pre-existing conditions could better afford their healthcare.

[PaulaGem]

I guess insurance isn't really designed for pre-existing condtions. It would be like getting fire insurance for my house after it has already been damaged by fire.. I already know what the damages are going to be, I already know it is going to happen because it already has. Insurance is based on probabilities of things occurring versus the cost of those occurrences. If I have diabetes and the medicine and supplies cost $140/month, why would an insurance company want to charge me any less than $140 to pay for this along with a regular monthly premium that would cover whatever costs my health might incur in the future?

So we can either keep our insanely high costs by getting the government involved and subsidizing the high medical costs, or we can return to a free market system and reduce medical costs substantially. That way people with pre-existing conditions could better afford their healthcare.

The only time pre-existing conditions are an issue is when individuals must purchase insurance. Most businesses with more than a few people can get reasonable insurance with "no medical underwriting". In this case pre-existing conditions may not be covered for a year, but they will be covered.

The problem of pre-existing conditions has been created by an industry trying to maximize profits. Since many of these are supposed to be "non-profit", there should be a way to regulate this and split insurance purchases away from employment. Since they claim to be "non-profit" even a libertarian should not object to this sort of regulation.

[Mini-Me]

Depends on what you mean by pre-existing condition.

Real insurance covers the risk of an improbable, random event occuring - like a house fire or a car accident or a ship wreck. It makes economic sense for a bunch of people to pool their risk of being a victim of such an unlikely event. They can each kick in a little money and that will cover the cost of the risk because only a small percentage of them will actually need a payout. And because none of them know which one of them will be the vicitm, they are all willing to pay in.

Contrast that with so called medical "insurance" that is required to cover expenses that will CERTAINLY occur - like checkups and so on - or that are voluntary - like pregnancy. These are not risks. So this is not really insurance and the economic model that makes insurance work in the market does not apply. Groups of people get no benefit from pooling when the payout is certain to occur for each. They are better off going it alone. (There may be benefits from negotiating as a group for better prices, but that is not an insurance concept, it is a group-buy concept).

The same is true of people who buy an insurance policy when the already have some kind of known recurring disease. If you KNOW you are going to need cancer treatment, that is not a risk. It is a known cost. The economics of insurance do not apply to known costs.

If you want a medical plan to cover known and voluntary expense, you need to forget the insurance model because it doesn't work. When you try and make insurance function like a pre-paid medical plan, you have problems because the insurance companies are going to try and eliminate KNOWN expenses and cover only risk because that is what REAL insurance is supposed to do.

People who already have suffered an illness and are certain to have ongoing expenses related to that illness cannot truly be insured for that illness because they already HAVE it. The expense is not a risk, it is a certainty. In a free market nobody is going to pool their risk of getting a particular disease with someone who already HAS the disaease. It isn't fair and doesn't make sense.

So what happens to a person who has recurring expenses from a known disease? They either pay for the treatment themselves or rely on charity. They may also be able to band together with people in a similar situation to get group buy discounts. Forcing insurance pools to take on KNOWN expenses is wrong, will require coercion, and will ultimately ruin the pool and deprive the participants of the valuable benefits of a true risk-pooling insurance system. "Insurance" that covers known and voluntary expenses isn't really insurance, it is a form of socialism disguised as insurance and a free market will not do it. When government forces insurers to take on pre-existing conditions with know expenses, what it is really doing is forcing the other insureds to pay for those expenses. And, of course, insurance premiums go up.

What about people who have had an illness in the past and may or may not have a recurrence? A free market would offer them insurance at a rate adjusted to reflect the chances of a recurrence. If the chance was very high and the cost of treatment was very high, they could probably not afford coverage.

The good news is that a truly free market in health care would cause prices to drop so dramatically that healthcare would be MUCH more affordable.

The bad news is that sometimes bad things happen to people, including but not limited to, getting sick and dying. And that does not justify stealing other people's property.

Acala, this is a fantastic post, and it pretty much covers the whole health insurance aspect of the issue.* After combining it with some solid explanations about moral hazard, the reasons why health care is almost two orders of magnitude more expensive than it used to be (government meddling), and why a real free market would fix that, it'd make for a concise and nearly comprehensive essay on the entire healthcare issue...

[angelatc]

I have read a lot of the threads and some other information regarding health care reform.

One area I am still having problems reconciling with pre-existing conditions. How would the free market handle this? Do you really think insurance companies would offer insurance at affordable rates to those with pre-exiting conditions?

Also, I am stuck in a debate on another forum. She is from Canada and claims that it if it a totally gov't run program that is "not-for-profit" (similar to Canada) with basically no insurance company wanting to make a profit then no one would be denied life saving treatment. Help. I am not sure how to answer.

Thanks!

There is no such thing as insurance against a condition you already have. All these people want is a 3rd party payer. The free market would handle it with lower prices. No middleman (insurance), no deep pockets (government) means that the laws of supply and demand would be in effect.

It's Utopian nonsense to think that if there wasn't a profit involved then life-saving treatment won't be denied. Profit is the only real motive to provide life-saving treatments. Take profit out of the equation, and you're left only with costs. Given that any system (health care or otherwise) can only supply limited resources, logic dictates that cutting costs will be a necessity. Who else is there to receive the "benefit" of that cost cutting, other than the sick and elderly?

[PaulaGem]

Depends on what you mean by pre-existing condition.

Real insurance covers the risk of an improbable, random event occuring - like a house fire or a car accident or a ship wreck. It makes economic sense for a bunch of people to pool their risk of being a victim of such an unlikely event.

The same is true of people who buy an insurance policy when the already have some kind of known recurring disease. If you KNOW you are going to need cancer treatment, that is not a risk. It is a known cost. The economics of insurance do not apply to known costs.

The problem with your analysis is that those who have trouble getting insurance for what you are calling "known costs" may have already subsidized others in the insurance pool for years without getting their money out. Then they get really sick and the insurance company drops them or hikes the rates so high that they can't afford it.

People who already have suffered an illness and are certain to have ongoing expenses related to that illness cannot truly be insured for that illness because they already HAVE it. The expense is not a risk, it is a certainty. In a free market nobody is going to pool their risk of getting a particular disease with someone who already HAS the disaease. It isn't fair and doesn't make sense.

If the "free market" has the right to boot someone out just when they need the service it is not really a free market but a predatory market.

So what happens to a person who has recurring expenses from a known disease? They either pay for the treatment themselves or rely on charity. They may also be able to band together with people in a similar situation to get group buy discounts. Forcing insurance pools to take on KNOWN expenses is wrong, will require coercion, and will ultimately ruin the pool and deprive the participants of the valuable benefits of a true risk-pooling insurance system. "Insurance" that covers known and voluntary expenses isn't really insurance, it is a form of socialism disguised as insurance and a free market will not do it. When government forces insurers to take on pre-existing conditions with know expenses, what it is really doing is forcing the other insureds to pay for those expenses. And, of course, insurance premiums go up.

This is so very, very wrong. You completely ignore the issue of where those sick people without insurance come from. They are an industry byproduct.

You need to rework your model.

[PrairieQueen]

All these people want is a 3rd party payer.

Which is the tax payers right? They just don't care. They think it is worth it. They don't care that they may pay for the neighbors health care through their taxes. It is their "social duty" because, "you never no when you might be in that situation".

[acptulsa]

Which is the tax payers right? They just don't care. They think it is worth it. They don't care that they may pay for the neighbors health care through their taxes. It is their "social duty" because, "you never no when you might be in that situation".

So, ask them why, if they feel that way, they think the situation would be improved even one little bit by an extra layer of money-grubbing micromismanaging middlemen in Washington. Can't your state handle it? If not, move.

At least that would introduce some kind of competition to keep the bastards somewhat honest...

[TastyWheat]

There is no such thing as insurance against a condition you already have. All these people want is a 3rd party payer. The free market would handle it with lower prices. No middleman (insurance), no deep pockets (government) means that the laws of supply and demand would be in effect.

I agree. This kind of thing is happening already in the health care market. Procedures not covered by insurance are getting cheaper and more available because the customer is the patient and if the product/service is not affordable to the patient then nobody will buy it.

[Mini-Me]

I do wonder something though. As Paula Gem says,

The only time pre-existing conditions are an issue is when individuals must purchase insurance. Most businesses with more than a few people can get reasonable insurance with "no medical underwriting". In this case pre-existing conditions may not be covered for a year, but they will be covered.

What I'm wondering is this: Under current laws, are non-employer groups of people allowed to combine the concept of "group buy" concept with insurance? In other words, are a whole bunch of people with preexisting conditions permitted to band together and bargain collectively with insurance companies? (For that matter, I could apply this concept to an extended family or even a community.) Since they'd all have varying conditions (if any) and their risk would already be distributed, insurance companies might find it more difficult to turn away a large number of customers than a single person. Heck, if insurance companies still rejected them, they could form their own little private healthcare collective / safety net.

I kind of wonder why I never hear about anything like this going on, and I wonder if it's illegal? Does anyone know the law here? After all, I can see the reason why insurance companies would want collective buying groups to be restricted to employers: That means that anyone who becomes too sick to remain employed would leave the insurance plan along with employment (and the insurance company gets out of paying). On top of that, it would mean everyone who's unemployed (or not a student) would have to apply individually for rigorous screening.

[Mini-Me]

The problem with your analysis is that those who have trouble getting insurance for what you are calling "known costs" may have already subsidized others in the insurance pool for years without getting their money out. Then they get really sick and the insurance company drops them or hikes the rates so high that they can't afford it.

Is it even currently legal (or part of contracts) for insurance companies to do this? As far as I know, rates are only hiked by group (age group, etc.), not on an individual basis, and people cannot be kicked off an insurance plan for getting sick. However, as I mentioned in my previous post, I DO think this is why insurance is so closely tied to employment now: It means that people constantly switch policies, and anyone who becomes too sick to work would leave their employer's insurance plan by default. Although I may be wrong, I get the feeling that there are laws either requiring or heavily encouraging this. I think in a free market, we'd be seeing more individual-based insurance (and/or non-employer groups) and people signing onto a single policy for probably their entire life (when they get individual policies).

In any case, in a free market, I seriously doubt anyone would get insurance that includes such terms - I mean, what the heck would be the point, right?

If the "free market" has the right to boot someone out just when they need the service it is not really a free market but a predatory market.

I think Acala was actually referring to people applying for new insurance with preexisting conditions, though.

[angelatc]

Which is the tax payers right? They just don't care. They think it is worth it. They don't care that they may pay for the neighbors health care through their taxes. It is their "social duty" because, "you never no when you might be in that situation".

I suspect that most of them are not taxpayers, actually. Also, I am a taxpayer and I don't support it, so no, they can't be defined as "taxpayers."

[angelatc]

Is it even currently legal (or part of contracts) for insurance companies to do this? As far as I know, rates are only hiked by group (age group, etc.), not on an individual basis, and people cannot be kicked off an insurance plan for getting sick. In any case, in a free market, I seriously doubt anyone would get insurance that includes such terms - I mean, what the heck would be the point, right?
.

Yes, you're exactly right. The next phase of the argument is that "Well, sick people can't work any more and therefore can't afford the health insurance payments!"

Guess what. There's insurance for that, too.

[acptulsa]

From another thread:

Agree with Dr. 3D above of course that we should let people pay their own health care bills, but that aside...

If health care were to be done "fairly" by those who voluntarily paid for it, then those with higher risk would pay more, instead of spreading the costs off to the more healthy participants.

So, national health care doesn't encourage healthy activities, which means all health care costs go up, which means the government (as the single payer) suddenly has incentive to restrict our freedoms. Then comes the special interest money, which doesn't care what's really best for us, and then you get laws alleged to keep us healthy but which actually do just the opposite, and liberty goes out the window as a byproduct.

There's a reason we advocate the free market as a boon to liberty.

[PaulaGem]

Is it even currently legal (or part of contracts) for insurance companies to do this? As far as I know, rates are only hiked by group (age group, etc.), not on an individual basis, and people cannot be kicked off an insurance plan for getting sick. However, as I mentioned in my previous post, I DO think this is why insurance is so closely tied to employment now: It means that people constantly switch policies, and anyone who becomes too sick to work would leave their employer's insurance plan by default. Although I may be wrong, I get the feeling that there are laws either requiring or heavily encouraging this. I think in a free market, we'd be seeing individual-based insurance and people signing onto a single policy for probably their entire life.

In any case, in a free market, I seriously doubt anyone would get insurance that includes such terms - I mean, what the heck would be the point, right?


I think Acala was actually referring to people applying for new insurance with preexisting conditions, though.

Yes - it is legal and it is the industry standard. Anyone who gets seriously ill and has individual insurance gets priced out of the market.

You don't have a choice, and no one plans on getting that sick, but a certain percentage of us do.

Yes that is what Acala was talking about - but most of those people applying for NEW insurance are doing so because they lost the OLD insurance due to illness.

I could not get insurance without the Cover Colorado plan. I paid in for myself and my employees for 10 years, I even increased my premiums slightly by putting the business on a three month waiting period so an employee who was told he had MS but was not yet oficially diagnosed (which would invoke the pre-existing clause for him) could get coverage. When I needed it I was too sick to hire and supervise employees and alone no one would cover me.

[PrairieQueen]

Yes - it is legal and it is the industry standard. Anyone who gets seriously ill and has individual insurance gets priced out of the market.

You don't have a choice, and no one plans on getting that sick, but a certain percentage of us do.

Yes that is what Acala was talking about - but most of those people applying for NEW insurance are doing so because they lost the OLD insurance due to illness.

I could not get insurance without the Cover Colorado plan. I paid in for myself and my employees for 10 years, I even increased my premiums slightly by putting the business on a three month waiting period so an employee who was told he had MS but was not yet oficially diagnosed (which would invoke the pre-existing clause for him) could get coverage. When I needed it I was too sick to hire and supervise employees and alone no one would cover me.

So what you really need then is not health INSURANCE but help with health CARE.
And if costs were much lower, a lot of that you might be able to afford.

If not, then a non -profit org. could help. I am thinking of some thing like St. Judes.

Am I anywhere close?

[Acala]

Yes - it is legal and it is the industry standard. Anyone who gets seriously ill and has individual insurance gets priced out of the market.

You don't have a choice, and no one plans on getting that sick, but a certain percentage of us do.

Yes that is what Acala was talking about - but most of those people applying for NEW insurance are doing so because they lost the OLD insurance due to illness.

I could not get insurance without the Cover Colorado plan. I paid in for myself and my employees for 10 years, I even increased my premiums slightly by putting the business on a three month waiting period so an employee who was told he had MS but was not yet oficially diagnosed (which would invoke the pre-existing clause for him) could get coverage. When I needed it I was too sick to hire and supervise employees and alone no one would cover me.

If you have insurance and while covered under the policy suffer a covered illness, the company will pay for the treatment. To do otherwise would be a breach of the contract. In fact, they must pay for the COMPLETE treatment up to any policy limit. They do not, as you say, throw you out just when you need it. They throw you out AFTERWARD.

But nobody ever promised you coverage forever so once your "event" has been treated, the insurance pool has met its obligation to you. You contracted for specific coverage for a specific term and you got it. After that, you then need to renegotiate with the insurance pool. But now you may be a higher risk. That is unfortunate. But you don't get to hold the insurance pool hostage.

Of course all of this has been modified by various laws. But that is the basic market mechanism.

But focusing on insurance really misses the point. Insurance should only be necessary for truly catastrophic events - like triple bypass surgery. It should not be necessary for drugs or radiation or x-rays or bone setting. In a free market, those costs could be covered out of pocket. It is the government's intervention that has made medical care so expensive. And if you really need bypass surgery or some equally radical fix on a regular basis, well, you can't really expect people to want to pool risks with you.

[Acala]

Acala, this is a fantastic post, and it pretty much covers the whole health insurance aspect of the issue.* After combining it with some solid explanations about moral hazard, the reasons why health care is almost two orders of magnitude more expensive than it used to be (government meddling), and why a real free market would fix that, it'd make for a concise and nearly comprehensive essay on the entire healthcare issue...

Thanks! I didn't think anyone read it.

[Bruno]

From another thread:



So, national health care doesn't encourage healthy activities, which means all health care costs go up, which means the government (as the single payer) suddenly has incentive to restrict our freedoms. Then comes the special interest money, which doesn't care what's really best for us, and then you get laws alleged to keep us healthy but which actually do just the opposite, and liberty goes out the window as a byproduct.

There's a reason we advocate the free market as a boon to liberty.

Correct. Except I wasn't talking about a government run health care, but rather a private, voluntary system that would more fairly distribute the health care costs.

Most people at my work (200,000+ employees) do not have to take an insurance exam prior to getting health care through their employer. A good percentage are obese, and we all pay higher costs because of it, to spread out the risk.

[acptulsa]

Thanks! I didn't think anyone read it.

Ha! I read it and would have been as glowing about it had Mini not done a fine job already!