Universal health care...

wpiman2 · #1 1st July 2009, 07:41 PM

Parsing the Health Reform Arguments - WSJ.com

Billnew · #2 2nd July 2009, 10:32 AM

Very nice article.
But it would seem better placed in politics.

As it is, employees in those countries pay for their health care in much higher income taxes, sales or value-added taxes, gasoline taxes (think $8 a gallon at the pump)

He doesn't mention the Goverment rationing board(for health care)

jayem · #3 2nd July 2009, 11:58 AM

What he doesn't mention in that article is that we allow insurors the right to deny coverage, or raise people's rates to absurd levels based on their health status. And that the insurance in an employer-provided plan belongs to the employer, not to the employee. You get laid off, you lose your and your family's coverage. And once your COBRA runs out, good luck finding affordable coverage--especially if you, or a family member have pre-existing health problems. I don't want government to become an insurance company, but these failings have to be fixed. A properly structured universal health plan can do this, still within the private sector, and can address virtually all of his other objections. But the status quo cannot stand.

Trogdor the Burninator · #4 2nd July 2009, 11:52 PM

The arguments from the article fail on lots of levels.

Show me a private insurer who doesn't deny coverage for the dreaded "pre-existing condition". Show me how private healtch care mimics in any way a free market (when the alternative is ruinous health costs and probably bankrupcy). Show me that insurers in no way limit the treatments that doctors can use - not matter the cost - ever.

The "private health care is a free market" arguments especially, from someone who is supposedly an economist, are laughable.

wpiman2 · #5 3rd July 2009, 12:02 PM

Originally Posted by Trogdor the Burninator

The arguments from the article fail on lots of levels.

Show me a private insurer who doesn't deny coverage for the dreaded "pre-existing condition". Show me how private healtch care mimics in any way a free market (when the alternative is ruinous health costs and probably bankrupcy). Show me that insurers in no way limit the treatments that doctors can use - not matter the cost - ever.

The "private health care is a free market" arguments especially, from someone who is supposedly an economist, are laughable.

If we forbid insurers to deny coverage to those with preexisting conditions; people will just wait until they have a condition to buy coverage. You argument might hold water if insurers drop sick patients. Certainly there is a problem in that insurance is tethered to a job; but that is more an artifact of the old conditions of the labor market.

Of course insurance companies limit the costs; show me a health care system run by the public sector which spend infinite amount of dollars/pounds/euros on care. Resources are limited.

I buy health care on the open market; I have options. I buy BCBS; and they have a plethora of options themselves. I pick what is best for me; it is in the interest of BCBS to have many options. It is a free market from my perspective.

ACougar · #6 3rd July 2009, 02:06 PM

- "Forty-five million people in the U.S. are uninsured."
Even if this were true (many dispute it) should we risk destroying a system that works for the vast majority to help 15% of our population?

You could add to that another 10 who benefit from SCHIP and other government insurance programs in place today and you'd see roughly 20% of the population that can't afford thier own health care. How does providing insurance for those who don't have it, risk destroying the system?

- "The cost of treating the 45 million uninsured is shifted to the rest of us."
So on Monday, Wednesday and Friday we are harangued about the 45 million people lacking medical care, and on Tuesday and Thursday we are told we already pay for that care. Left-wing reformers think that if they split the two arguments we are too stupid to notice the contradiction. Furthermore, if cost shifting is bad, wait for the Mother of all Cost Shifting when suppliers have to overcharge the private plans to compensate for the depressed prices forced on them by the public plan.

They can't get preventative care or see a doctor unless it's an emergency. The cost of those emergencies is already shifted to the rest of us. If all those people had access to preventative care I believe we'd actually save money.

I'm not buying this idea that suppliers are going to overcharge private plans to make up for profit lost to public plans. That's not the way competition works, private plans would be able to use the lower prices paid by public care (assuming they are significently lower) to negotiate lower rates for themselves. The private plans would need to remain competative, why would the supplier put his higher paying customer out of bussiness? That would be stupid.

- "A universal plan will reduce the cost of health care."
Think a moment. Suppose you are in an apple market with 100 buyers and 100 sellers every day and apples sell for $1 a pound. Suddenly one day 120 buyers show up. Will the price of the apples go up or down?

Except that this plan does nothing to create new buyers, the problem before was that 15-20 of the buyers couldn't afford an apple, but the law forced the sellers to insure everyone got apples. Now they will at least be able to cover part of the cost of the apples and the cost of providing those apples should be lower.