Smart Ideas On Healthcare From The Libertarians
From a press release I got from lp.org:
"While President Obama and the Republicans in Congress spend time debating whether religious groups must provide their employees free contraceptives, a far more fundamental issue is being ignored: if we want better health insurance for all, why are we making it illegal?"ObamaCare, known in Massachusetts as RomneyCare, effectively outlaws true health insurance. Insurance, if you think about it, should exist to protect you against catastrophic expenditures. For example, car insurance doesn't cover the cost of gas and oil, as it would be outrageously expensive due to the incentive for increased driving. Similarly, health insurance should not cover ordinary and predictable costs, yet remains outrageously expensive because it does."
"Then why do consumers continue to buy overpriced insurance that covers predictable costs? Government. First, the senseless connection of health insurance to employment is the result of a system that taxes cash wages but not health benefits, punishing employees who would rather have higher cash wages while making their own personal choice of health coverage. Second, special interests in every state have lobbied legislators to mandate coverage for their particular product or service. Finally, regulation not only drives up the cost of healthcare, but also restricts entry into the field, leading to even higher prices."
"The result is this: if you want inexpensive health insurance, but don't want coverage for alcoholism, weight loss programs and baldness treatments, and would prefer a deductible based on your personal finances: TOUGH. Even if you're not stuck with your employer's choices, the type of individually tailored coverage you want is illegal.
"Instead of ObamaRomneyCare, we need to decriminalize good health insurance.Eliminate the coverage mandates, the laws against purchasing health insurance across state lines, and the unfavorable tax treatment of personal insurance policies. Remove the regulations that block entry of new insurers, including charitable organizations which could provide catastrophic protection for the poor and the club-based insurance policies that were once popular before the insurance industry and American Medical Association both pushed to make them illegal."
"As for contraception? Women shouldn't need a permission slip from their doctor to have safe sex. Removing the prescription requirement would massively reduce the cost of contraceptives, making it far more affordable. In turn, this would ease the burden on groups such as Planned Parenthood that have long provided free contraceptives to those in need."
The Congress would never consider this stuff. It makes too much sense.
mpetrie98 at April 2, 2012 12:15 AM
Health care is pretty much the only thing you can buy without finding out what it costs in advance.
You want to save money? Force all providers to publish their costs.
MarkD at April 2, 2012 5:07 AM
The Congress would never consider this stuff. It makes too much sense.
EXACTLY what I was thinking!
Flynne at April 2, 2012 6:45 AM
Not buying gas or changing your oil has consequences that will probably not impact the insurance company.
Many preventative medical tests, etc. can save the insurance company money in the long run. Mine has a list of things that require no copay and are covered without deductible. Companies that don't do that are probably betting you will be the problem of a different company when the other shoe drops.
nonegiven at April 2, 2012 9:02 AM
MarkD:
It's not that simple.
Costs for what? The dealer I bought my car from has published costs - but routinely rips people off (which is why they don't do work on my car now that I know about them.)
I went in to have a sebaceous cyst removed. After cutting in - turns out to have been a tumor.
So was that bait and switch that a 15 minute procedure turned into a 3 hour ordeal? Can I make them only charge me for the stated procedure I 'signed on for', or while my back is cut open do I need to authorize more charges?
It's a nice idea, and it would be somewhat useful - except in the current insurance system, which penalizes the living hell out of that idea - but there are some realistic issues with it.
Unix-Jedi at April 2, 2012 10:23 AM
Health insurance can never work like car insurance (or be nearly as affordable) because you can't "total" a human being.
But I do agree that the health care reform law does err in practically eliminating high-deductible plans (you have to either have economic hardship or be young to be "allowed" to get one).
In fact, high-deductible plans are the BEST solution for many people, although, as nonegiven points out, it's a good idea to incentivize (ie, offer without cost-sharing) certain preventative procedures and wellness visits. Otherwise, nobody would go to the doctor ever and end up costing everyone more money in the long-run.
As someone who can't even GET a high-deductible plan on the individual market (I have a harmless, yet untreatable, health issue that looks scary in insurance application paperwork), I see (selfishly, I know) the benefits of the mandate -- which, in turn, makes it so that nobody can be denied health insurance.
BUT, if I ran the country, I'd adjust the mandate to allow high-deductible plans -- instead of the "gold," "silver," "bronze" plan nonsense in the current law.
sofar at April 2, 2012 11:25 AM
So the argument is we can't have perfection, so let's have nothing?
If you take your car to a mechanic, and ask for an estimate, and the problem turns out to be more than originally determined, what happens? You pay more, of course.
However, if you get an estimate for a brake job, it should not be "somewhere between $3 and $3500 depending on."
MarkD at April 2, 2012 11:40 AM
So the argument is we can't have perfection, so let's have nothing?
If you take your car to a mechanic, and ask for an estimate, and the problem turns out to be more than originally determined, what happens? You pay more, of course.
However, if you get an estimate for a brake job, it should not be "somewhere between $3 and $3500 depending on."
MarkD at April 2, 2012 11:42 AM
Sorry for double post.
MarkD at April 2, 2012 11:45 AM
Actually, you can "total" a human being. If procedures need to be approved, a gov't health care system can (and some do) say nope, not enough of a cost-benefit ratio, so sorry.
Catherine at April 2, 2012 12:29 PM
Actually, you can "total" a human being. If procedures need to be approved, a gov't health care system can (and some do) say nope, not enough of a cost-benefit ratio, so sorry.
...as do (or did) some insurers, when they were allowed to drop patients at any time and/or impose lifetime limits on coverage.
However, even if the government or the insurer does eventually decide to pull the plug, so to speak, it's generally after a hospital stay, emergency care, life support costs, etc, that can total 100s of thousands of dollars. So, even if the human is eventually "totaled," the health care system has spent an outlandish amount of money giving it the old college try.
So, basically, it would be like an auto insurer allowing a mechanic to do a bunch of expensive repairs, and then saying, "Well...we tried. NOW, after spending all this time and money, we're going to total it." Auto insurance doesn't work like that.
I guess a better way of saying it would be that humans are more expensive to fix than cars. Health care reform won't change that. A single-payer system won't change that. Staying where we are now won't change that. So what's the solution? Wish I knew...
sofar at April 2, 2012 1:34 PM
EVERY human being winds up being "totaled."
Not to be grim, but it's true.
Pirate Jo at April 2, 2012 2:03 PM
"EVERY human being winds up being "totaled.""
Which is why this is NOT INSURANCE, it is socialized medicine.
"You want to save money? Force all providers to publish their costs."
Okay!
Radwaste at April 2, 2012 3:29 PM
Life: n. -- A sexually transmitted disease with a 100% mortality rate.
==================================
Everyone needs to understand that they will need healthcare at some point.
Under the current system, until you reach 7.5% of your income, for the year, it isn't deductible from your taxes. Self paying premiums doesn't count. Your Flexible Spending Account (FSA) is only good for the year.
As I see it, if they came up with a multi-year Medical Spending Account that fell in line with a catastrophic insurance plan I.e. you have $12,500 in your MSA and the plan kicks in at $20K with a cap at $500K it would cover 90% of situations. You would be out $7500.
But at the same time you could use your MSA and still be responsible for the difference to the cat plan. But those that use the MSA to pay for the regular visits to a doctor are less likely need the $20K. Those that get over the $20K in the MSA would have to decide how to spend it.
Jim P. at April 2, 2012 8:52 PM
I SO wish they'd untie health care from employment, and allow insurance companies to compete. If there's a downside to that, I'm not seeing it.
Daghain at April 2, 2012 9:57 PM
Daghain - who is this "they" you mention?
Radwaste at April 3, 2012 2:58 AM
If I knew how the hell to do it, I'd be emperor now. :D
Daghain at April 3, 2012 5:32 PM
Leave a comment