Interesting discussion on healthcare going on over at Bubba's. Here's my take, as posted in a comment:
Why is it a "right" to have access to healthcare? Is it one of the "inalienable" rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence? It isn't in my copy, but maybe I have the abridged version.
Nope, looked it up; not in there.
Well then, maybe it is a human right, not one reserved to American's, but to all people on the planet. Does everybody have a basic 'right' to healthcare? If so, then shouldn't our first act be to reduce the level of care available in the US to the world average, then use our surplus to bring the world average up? Of course, we would have to accept a tremendous rise in infant mortality, as well as a drastic fall in average longevity, but if health care is a right for everybody, we are unfairly monopolizing that resource for ourselves.
You don't like that idea?
Health care is not a right. It is a benefit of living in a wealthy, technologically advanced society. Now we can debate what level of priority we want to give this benefit, how many other benefits we are willing to sacrifice to maintain it, but calling it a right distorts the discussion before it begins.
If you really want to reform healthcare, get insurance out of it all together. Try a little experiment. Track health care costs over time, and see when they began rising faster than the general inflation rate. What you'll find is that the acceleration began when health insurance became more common. You'll see a similar result in auto insurance. When it becomes mandatory, it gets more expensive. The insurance companies claim it is because they have to accept high risk drivers, so everybody's premiums go up. This will also be true of a universal health insurance plan. right now, insurance companies screen their pool to minimize their exposure. Adding in the high risk clients will increase, not decrease the premiums. The present pool may be smaller, but it is a better risk than a larger pool.
The other problem with insurance is that it provides a tremendous pool of money to draw from. Hospitals can get away with charging $20 for an aspirin, because we don't feel the pain of paying the bill. Doctors can charge $75 for a 6 minute office visit because we only pay the co-pay or deductible; the rest comes from our employer. Health insurance is a licence for doctors/HMO's to steal. And they do.
Here's some more research for you. Track the averag salary of doctors against the per capita income over the last 70 years. You;ll see that doctors as a group earned just at or below the national average, then their earnings took off as medical insurance became more popular.
Finally, the large pool of available cash drew lawyers like sharks to blood. Malpractice suits skyrocketed as doctor's wealth increased.
So here comes the insurance company, happy to jump in and provide malpractice insurance, creating another large pool of money, drawing more parasites.
You want to fix health care? Get rid of health insurance.
Posted by Rich at December 16, 2002 1:27 PMTo reiterate, with these problems and the problems mentioned in my latest rant, you might convince me that insurance companies are the problem and should be eliminated.
The problem I see is that it is a gigantic industry that I don't think we want to just eliminate or Federalize. That's why I think Universal Health Care is the solution (assuming I understand it correctly).
The alternative is that only the wealthy would be able to afford health care, or a gigantic tax burden to help the disadvantaged (more than we have now). Insurance is really sort of a health care tax, or commercialized socialism for health care. If everybody had to pay it and it was regulated (and not provided through employers) I think it would work.
Posted by: SK Bubba on December 20, 2002 11:05 AMIf we can find a cost effective way to implement a universal health care system, I would still have a problem with making participation mandatory, as well as the concept of health care as a basic right. Does everyone have a right to the same level of health care? If not, how do we diferentiate? Who gets what? Health care is a finite resource; how do we determine who gets how much?
Maybe we set up universal coverage for catastrophic care only, leaving preventive and routine care up to the individual. That could work, but that isn't what everybody is talking about.
Posted by: rich on December 22, 2002 10:34 PM