I’ve been thinking and listening a lot to the healthcare debate lately so I thought I’d share some thoughts on the issue from my brother who I thought was very right-wing (well, his sons are!
. I think he said it better than I could).
——————————————————————————————————-
I suspect you and I are probably not far apart in the health care debate in spite of your liberalism and my conservatism. I don’t think this issue fits at all comfortably in the capitalism vs. socialism worldview. I kind of feel like I’d like to write a full essay (or treatise or something) on this issue when I have time. But I want to at least respond on a few key issues. I’ve been hearing a lot of the arguments and frankly, a lot of the conservative arguments I’ve heard don’t hold water.
I’ve thought for a number of years that the insurance industry is thoroughly and totally corrupt – and not just health insurance. A lot of it hits me personally, too, because I couldn’t even consider the possibility of doing contract work or going into business for myself full-time because I couldn’t afford the health care. That is a big disincentive for entrepreneurialism. I think our current system (if you can even call it a system) is really screwed up.
So here’s a few issues.
Pre-existing conditions
The conservative argument that covering pre-existing conditions is like buying house insurance while your house is burning down is full of holes. To make that argument honest, you would have to have your existing house insurance cancelled while your house is burning down (or when the forest fire is coming over the hill). Most people trying to cover pre-existing conditions are just trying to replace insurance they’re no longer eligible for because we treat losing your job – and therefore your insurance – as though you’ve never been insured before.
Socialized medicine
Mike Rosen points out the we are a mixed economy, not a capitalist economy. He says that reasonable people can argue on the balance between capitalism and socialism. For example we socialize education and we’ve generally agreed that that is a good thing. This is me talking now. I also accept that it’s acceptable to socialize some things and don’t care about the “Socialist” boogey man argument. Plus we already have a hodge podge of government and private insurance.
Healthy subsidizing the sick
“That’s not fair,” I’ve heard. Well anyone who has a problem with that has no clue in the world what insurance is. The entire purpose of insurance is to spread catastrophic costs among a large population so that if your number comes up, you can afford the thing you’re insuring for. We’re all entered into a health lottery upon conception. And one day we’ll each reap the grand prize of death when our body can no longer keep going. From day-to-day we have no idea what the lottery has in store – a paper cut or quadriplegia, a cold or cancer, etc. So a healthy 25-year-old should subsidize the chronically ill through insurance because he may fall off a mountain or get a diagnosis of M.S. tomorrow and be the one being subsidized.
The profit motive
There are mainly two ways for a business to increase profits: increase revenue more than the cost of increasing the revenue; or cut costs. The main cost for insurance companies is paying claims. They have become very adept at cutting costs – from pricing premiums down to the most granular level possible making insurance unaffordable for many individuals and small businesses – to finding ways to cancel the policies of those who need it most. That’s where I think the insurance companies have become the most corrupt. I have a real hard time seeing how the profit motive benefits me as the payee of claims. Then you get the fact that usually one party makes the decision on what insurance to purchase and pay part of the premiums (the employer) and another party pays the rest of the premiums and gets the claims benefits (the employee). So the whole normal capitalist scenario (like the TV purchase) just doesn’t fit with insurance. Insurance companies have a high incentive to pay as little as possible in claims. Employers have a high incentive to pay the lowest premiums they can.
Universal coverage
We’re already haphazardly covering the general population. But we’re doing it in the most medically ineffective and cost ineffective way we possibly can. We cover outrageously expensive ER visits for the indigent instead of the much cheaper care that could prevent many ER visits. (Oh BTW I just discovered this summer that I don’t believe in any kind of preventative care or maintenance. But that’s only because I discovered that preventative is not a word. The word in preventive.) So what is so bad about universal coverage? When I went to work for Citigroup, I would have had the same access to insurance at the same cost if I had a totally healthy family as I would if I had made a practice of adopting children with extreme medical needs and had 10 such children with medical bills totaling in the hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. So why can’t we give the general population the same benefit? Citigroup can spread the risk over a large population. Well in the whole U.S., we have a much larger population to spread the risk over.
Cost of universal coverage
Can it really even be more expensive than our current “system” to cover everyone? Apparently a lot of countries have figured out how to cover everyone – and many apparently do it well – at much less per person than it costs in the U.S. I just read that an MRI scan costs about $1,500 in the U.S. and about $98 in Japan – and the $98 still allows for profit. And how about the armies of insurance bureaucrats trying to find ways to deny claims and cancel policies? How about the myriad variations of forms that medical providers have to wade through? What about the contract negotiations which myriads of insurance companies? And there’s the costs you mentioned – lobbying, adverstising, etc. And to bring TV purchases back into the picture, what about the cost of a TV (or any other retail item)? What I mean by that is this. The TV retailer takes credit cards. Built into the fees the merchants pay the credit card companies (and included in the cost of the TV) is the cost of bankruptcies. If roughly half the bankruptcies (give or take 10% I think) are due to medical expenses, I’m sure many come from people who transferred their medical bills to credit cards. Of course there’s the more direct medical cost of bankruptcies where the providers never get paid and the cost of passed onto the rest of us.
Me and you and our family and everyone else
I’m doing OK as far as paying medical bills right now, though they have been pretty expensive. But I’m just a job loss and a major illness away from medical bankruptcy. So are we all – including those who like their current insurance. Also, most of us have a very small choice in the doctors we can go to.
What now?
Whatever we do, I think some of the things that are wrong are: tying insurance so closely to employment that a job loss can mean medical cost devastation; denying coverage to anyone due to their current health condition; making the sick pay more than the healthy; people being unable to get medical care because they’re too poor; going bankrupt due to medical costs. We should be studying what the other industrialized countries have done and learn from their successes and failures. Some have universal coverage with private insurance. None have the restrictions on which practitioners they can go to that we have.
What if the taxes were raised in the amount that people are now paying for health insurance? Then the money that our employers and we pay for that insurance went into a government insurance fund. Then our salaries are reduced by the amount we no longer pay in premiums. That would be a wash for us and our employers. With the things I mentioned earlier, I suspect that the extra costs to cover everyone may be more than offset by getting rid of the things we do to make our health care so much more expensive than the rest of the world – which we’re all paying for indirectly anyway.
I don’t know what the government to private balance should be; but I do know that any private players should be required to abide by the rules that don’t allow the things that I mentioned in the last paragraph that are wrong. I need to know more about what’s already been tried in countries that have private insurance like Germany and Japan and those that don’t like Canada and Taiwan. We should be able to go to any doctor, too. Also forms should be standardized for all.
This is the first time I’ve really consolidated my thoughts on this so you’re the first to hear it. So I don’t think we’re too far off from each other.


SocialVibe