How To Make Health Care More Affordable:

[unixronin]

How to make health care more available and affordable, according to Congress:

1. Eliminate inexpensive bare-bones insurance plans.
2. Make everyone buy every possible kind of coverage, whether they need them or not.  Make teetotallers buy substance-abuse coverage and single men buy pediatric and maternity coverage.
3. De facto tax prescription drugs.
4. De facto tax medical devices.
5. De facto prohibit expanding hospitals or building new ones.

I wish I was making this up.

(Thanks to montieth for the pointer.)

Comments

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

"Inexpensive plans" are what are commonly called "junk insurance."

"Make everyone buy..." is another way of saying "risk pooling."

There's reasons not to like this bill, but those two are simply arguments against public health care entire. The rest of the world has already had this debate and government systems work better, much better, than private one everywhere else in the world.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

"Inexpensive plans" are what are commonly called "junk insurance."

...by people who want everything they could ever possibly need covered. What if you want to pay all the small shit out of pocket because you very seldom ever go see a doctor, but want to be covered for catastrophic care in case you get hit by a truck while crossing the street?

"Inexpensive insurance" does not always mean "junk insurance". Sometimes it means "only buying as much insurance as you think you need."

"Make everyone buy..." is another way of saying "risk pooling."

One could just as easily say, "risk pooling" is a euphemism for making everyone buy coverage they will never use to subsidize the people who will, and making low-risk subscribers subsidize high-risk ones. And yet, this industry wants to be able to deny coverage to people who do things like ride motorcycles, fly ultralights, climb mountains, or jump out of perfectly good airplanes with a parachute. At which point people who do any of these things ask questions like, "How come THEIR risks get pooled, but MINE get excluded? How come I have to subsidize my neighbor for the health consequences of his four-pack-a-day habit and his eating dinner at MacDonalds every night, but I get to pay all my costs out of pocket if he runs me into a divider on my motorcycle?"

The rest of the world has already had this debate and government systems work better, much better, than private one everywhere else in the world.

There's a lot of people who have to actually use those government systems who would disagree with you.

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

How can one predict how much health insurance one will need? Inexpensive health insurance is largely purchased by people who can't afford better, and is of low quality. People who have the means purchase more extensive coverage. There are a few people who stand on ideology here, and a few rich enough not to need health insurance, but these groups are tiny minorities.

Any public service will be used more by some people than others--that's the nature of public services. In health insurance the major use difference is in use is between young and old. But we all get old.

"There's a lot of people who have to actually use those government systems who would disagree with you."

Do you have sources on that other than US anti-government activists? So far as I know those systems, like Social Security and Medicare in the USA, are overwhelmingly popular. They have their detractors, to be sure, but not in large numbers. They are also far less expensive than the existing US system, and provide better care by most standards, and this is so regardless of the model used, from socialized (UK) to regulated insurance (Swiss).

I dislike the US national health insurance plan as passed, even after the improvements in the House reconciliation bill, if those are passed by the Senate. I don't regard it as a victory, except over the radical right. It is a loss for women and a barrier to real improvements in US health care. Everything that might have substantially reduced health care costs (and insurance and pharmaceutical industry profits) was removed by the Senate. But let's criticize it for its real failings, not because it outlaws junk insurance or because some people will use it more than others.

[cipherpunk.livejournal.com]

How can one predict how much health insurance one will need?

It's an exercise in linear programming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_programming), when you get right down to it. You have a risk exposure, X; you have a supply of finances, Y. You want to reduce your risk exposure down beneath a certain threshold, and you want to preserve your finances. Etc., etc.

The tools of basic economics do not cease applying to health care just because the stakes are high, in the same way that bread does not become free just because people need to eat.

Inexpensive health insurance is largely purchased by people who can't afford better, and is of low quality.

News flash: Toyota Camrys are largely purchased by people who can't afford BMWs, and are of lower quality. Never mind — even that statement is false. It isn't that a Camry buyer can't afford a BMW. It's that the opportunity cost for the BMW is much higher than the Camry. For the price of a BMW, they can get a Camry and a down payment on a house — and maybe for them having a house is a higher priority than having a BMW. Likewise, inexpensive health insurance is not "largely purchased by people who can't afford better." It's largely purchased by people who make rational decisions about opportunity costs, and are electing to make the most bang for their buck.

For fraudulent policies that lie, misstate or deceive about the actual coverage provided, my opinion is that criminal trials and stiff sentences are appropriate. But inexpensive policies that play by the rules serve very real needs in the marketplace, and only a fool would try to drive them out.

Do you have sources on that other than US anti-government activists?

I am about as far from an anti-government activist as can be imagined. Many people who are outraged over this bill are fervent believers in the American ideal. I am not opposed to the American government, but I have some very real concerns about the direction in which it is going — and to paint me, and those who feel likewise, as "anti-government" is an appalling libel.

[fruitylips.livejournal.com]

"I am about as far from an anti-government activist as can be imagined."

Doesn't matter. This is their new talking point this week. Anyone who is against any part of this or offers any evidence of any imperfection is a radical, anti-government activist. Welcome to the ranks!

Remember those halcyon days under W when dissent was patriotic? Well, too bad. STFU and get in line.

[lebo-superman.livejournal.com]

I'm still laughing. BHO cashed all his chips to get this passed, and spent the last shred of most of his allies future in the process. But it's a fore-gone conclusion that this will make an appearance before SCOTUS - who just happened to be pissed off at BHO because of the insult he tossed at them in his first SOTU address.

So this will never be enforced, and will be overturned by SCOTUS.

[fruitylips.livejournal.com]

I tend to doubt that the SCOTUS will do anything. There's a solid 4 votes for it. Given recent 'General Welfare' and 'Interstate Commerce' jurisprudence, there's no reason for Kennedy to vote no.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Besides which, the SCOTUS is kinda supposed to be impartial and not pay any attention to whether or not one or another party to a case has flipped them the bird lately.

(I mean, sure, it's not an ideal world, but....)

[lebo-superman.livejournal.com]

Thanks for posting this. I wish there were a way to easily negate this mess. However, no matter what is about to happen, it looks like it's going to get messy.