Archive for the ‘#medicalinsurance’ Tag
American citizens have several cultural attitudes toward health care and savings that has resulted in an economy that spends one-sixth of the GDP on medical care. Other countries don’t pay so much and many of them have universal medical coverage.
So what’s our problem?
A major issue is that Americans have stopped saving anything. Many of us have retirement accounts, which work because it’s not easy to tap into them, but most of us do not have savings accounts. I recently read an article by a financial guru who spent most of the article ripping into Dave Ramsey for suggesting that paying off debt and having 3-6 months of living expenses in savings made no sense to her. You should be investing those funds, not leaving them in the bank account.
So, naturally, since, they don’t believe in savings, the American middle class does not believe in saving up for medical care expenses. The idea that you should have $10,000 to 15,000 in savings for a potential acute medical episode is ridiculous in most people’s minds. This isn’t pre-World War 2 America, nor are we a 3rd world country. That’s “wasted money” just sitting in a bank.
We object to paying one-sixth of our personal income directly on health-and-medical expenses, but we also resent paying one-sixth of the government’s treasury on health-and-medical expenses. We are less willing to spend public funds to pay for health maintenance than we are to pay for medical services, even though study after study shows that we get better results from getting people to change unhealthy lifestyles than from treating the consequences of those lifestyles. You can’t really blame the American middle class from objecting to paying taxes in order to support people who are very poor or very sick when they themselves work hard to have an income and to take care of their health. Americans are not Scandinavians. We believe in personal responsibility, if only for other people.
Americans, especially medical care providers, do not want to think of medical care as a commodity that is bought and sold in an open market subject to supply and demand rules. Providers want to be paid (and paid well), but they don’t want to think of themselves as capitalists selling their services, so they prefer payment that comes from third parties where the price is hidden from consumers.
Americans are individualists at heart and object to telling other people how to live their lives or being told by others how to live theirs. This means that the right to live an unhealthy lifestyle is considered sacrosanct in the United States. Under the ACA or universal coverage, that means that healthier individuals pay for the poor choices of less healthy individuals.
Americans also tend to live in a state of denial about some health choices, so that about one-quarter of our population engages in unhealthy lifestyles that have long-term medical care expense consequences, the cost of which are born by people who take care of themselves rather than the poor decision makers who require the expensive long-term care.
Americans enjoy being “early adopters” of new treatments, which are often much more expensive in their early, experimental stages than when they have been available for many years. Forty years ago, when medical care was a smaller share of the economy, we could afford that attitude, but new treatment options now require expensive equipment and highly-trained specialists. Although these treatments promise incredible results, they are expensive to the individuals receiving the treatments … or the group that’s paying the bills.
All of these attitudes conspire to make the “Affordable” Care Act, or any replacement other than the free market, incredibly and increasingly expensive for all of us. Universal coverage will only exacerbate the problems that these cultural attitudes engender, leading inevitably in medical care rationing and resultant lack of availability of care, with the end results being similar to England’s 45% higher mortality rate.
Yes, we could choose universal coverage and then attempt to outlaw everything that makes people unhealthy. Good luck with that! It hasn’t worked in France and England, which is one reason England has a 45% higher mortality rate than the US.
Alternatively, we could work with human nature and return our medical care system to the free market it began in. Lift the government-created restrictions against individuals forming groups to drive down medical insurance costs. Lift the government-created restrictions that prevent us from buying insurance across state lines. Life the government-created monopoly against increasing medical schools and opening clinics. Yes, that would mean that some people wouldn’t make good health choices and wouldn’t have medical care coverage when those choices require them to seek medical care. That would be the consequence of being a poor-decision maker and it might drive some of this group to make better choices. Additionally, medical care would become less expensive because government-created barriers to care and affordable insurance would no longer be a factor in price.
We have a choice to make in this country. Do we want reduced access to expensive care, but everybody having insurance or do we want improved access to affordable care with some people choosing (for themselves) not to have insurance?
I know which one I prefer and which one I believe would result in improved health results.
I believe sincerely that everyone should have the right to do whatever he wants, provided it doesn’t harm other people or their property. I’m not saying I like it or think it is good for you, but I stand by your right to smoke like a chimney (so long as you don’t do it in my airspace), drink like a fish (but not if I share a household with you), or eat like a hippo (so long as I don’t pay your grocery bill).
Sadly, your lifestyle choices became my problem when the Affordable Care Act was passed. Your poor decisions now cost me money, which is a form of property. Hey, you, with the 50-inch waistline … that’s my kid’s college education in medical expenses that you expect me to pay, so yeah, I have a problem with the Affordable Care Act.
Back in 2009 when the Democratic-dominated government started touting the Affordable Care Act, they assured that the expansion of medical insurance coverage to all Americans would come at no cost to any citizen. A lot of us (about 60% of the electorate) were skeptical and that time and anyone paying even cursory attention to their medical insurance premiums since the go-live date for Obamacare knows our skepticism was well-founded. Medical insurance premiums have dramatically increased for most Americans not in the subsidized classes.
It might have seemed like a noble idea – that everyone should be required to have medical insurance just in case, but the Affordable Care Act also required medical insurance providers to cover pre-existing medical conditions.
That means that health-conscious people like me must subsidize medical care costs for people who make poor health choices. These poor health choices lead to diabetes, coronary artery disease, cancer, obesity, COPD, etc., all long-term chronic diseases that require expensive treatment. Coverage of pre-existing medical conditions greatly increased the cost that medical insurance providers were forced to pay out for treatment. This was supposed to be offset by young, healthy adults joining the health insurance pool, but younger, healthier people take one look at the expensive premiums and choose to pay the mandatory fine, because it is less than the premiums. This increases medical insurance premiums even more.
As Rick tried to highlight, individuals are less likely to make wise health choices if it is perceived that they will not have to bear the financial consequences of those choices because insurance paid by others covers the majority of the costs. Medical insurance holders are able to seek out healthcare services without the cost of those services being a major deterrent, which encourages people to go to the hospital and doctor for very minor ailments. After all, you want to get value for what you are paying for. Then doctors are motivated to extract the maximum amount of payment … prescribing expensive and sometimes unnecessary treatments and medications because insurance is covering the cost.
Rick points out that doctors and hospitals are often at the mercy of insurance companies and what gets approved for coverage, so they use a scatter-gun approach toward billing. Patients often demand more expensive treatment because of an impression that it’s better and because cost isn’t an obstacle. This completely undermines doctor-patient relationships where the goal is to choose the best and most sensible treatment options based on a cost-benefit analysis.
All of this has increased the cost of medical insurance. While providing medical coverage to everyone seems very humanitarian, it forces health-conscious people to subsidize the medical care costs of people who make poor choices and is causing employers to drop insurance coverage as it becomes unaffordable. If current trends hold, and there’s no reason to believe they won’t, the Affordable Care Act is going to bankrupt the middle class.
We’re not joking when we call it the UN-Affordable Care Act.
In a perfect world where liberty was still an ideal we upheld, everyone would be able to live their life however they want and be accountable for the personal and financial impact of their choices. The fact that I love bacon even though my family has a history of stomach and bowel cancer would not matter in the least to you because it wouldn’t affect you. Unfortunately, with the ACA, we’re all in this mess together, which means we all affect each other. It becomes absolutely imperative that we all strive to be the healthiest people we can be so as to reduce the economic burden on our neighbors.
Please don’t think I’m down on obese people to the exclusion of smokers or alcoholics or whatever. I’m using obesity as my demonstration condition because of the costs associated with it and it’s lack of social stigmaticism. My Baptist friends who don’t drink or smoke will smugly sit on their ample rears complaining that I’m wrong. “Being overweight is not unhealthy and has no impact on the cost of healthcare,” they will say.
Sorry, folks. You’re wrong. Research demonstrates that obesity and even being moderately overweight are the second leading causes of preventable death, right behind tobacco usage.
Here are some alarming economic implications for obesity:
- Obese adults spend 42% more on direct medical care costs than adults who are a healthy weight.
- Per capita medical care costs for severely or morbidly obese adults (BMI >40) are 81% higher than for healthy weight adults. In 2000, around $11 billion was spent on medical expenditures for morbidly obese U.S. adults.
- Moderately obese (BMI between 30 and 35) individuals are more than twice as likely as healthy weight individuals to be prescribed prescription pharmaceuticals to manage medical conditions.
Did you know that 68.8% of the US citizens are considered overweight and obese? That represents a dramatic impact of overweight and obese individuals upon our medical care system.
Obesity is just one of many other preventable medical conditions that contribute to the cost of medical insurance, but obesity and being overweight are the most widespread.
We would all be personally well-serviced by quitting smoking, drinking less alcohol, exercising more, making better food choices, taking supplements wisely, and getting adequate sleep. There’s the direct positive impact on yourself, but better health habits would have a direct positive impact on the economy, and especially those of us who are forced to bear the cost of our nation’s medical care costs.
Unfortunately, you won’t see a financial benefit to making these changes. Unlike car insurance, where you receive lower premiums if you are a good driver who doesn’t have a lot of accidents, getting healthy doesn’t work the same way. Unlike life insurance, where you receive lower premiums if you’re a healthy individual, the ACA assures you will be paying for others who don’t make the same wise choices.
A less health population, which is indicated by slipping mortality rates. Although it sounds like such a great idea to provide medical insurance to everyone so they will be “healthier”, the reality is that the United States population has become less healthy as more of us have become covered by medical insurance.
Amid rising hmedical insurance costs and the debate over reforming/replacing the ACA, it’s easy to miss that an alternative already exists and needs to be protected in any health care reform plan. As Obamacare has driven up the cost of insurance premiums, a growing number of consumers and employers have turned toward high-deductible health plans (HDHPs), often known as “catastrophic health insurance.”
These plans feature lower-than-average premiums in exchange for higher-than-average deductibles, and many on the market today are paired with tax-advantaged health savings accounts (HSAs).
This is as opposed to some small group and individual market policies where you pay high premiums, but you also have a high deductible as a cost-savings means.
Brad and I used to have one of these in the individual market before I accepted a job with medical insurance that covers the family … for a price. There were no attached Health Savings Accounts available in those days and we only satisfied the deductible when we had our daughter through midwife delivery. Prenatal and labor and delivery just topped over the deductible and because we had chosen a low-cost (and much healthier option for childbirth) the insurance company reimbursed the entire bill … a nice baby-warming gift.
We looked into it when Obamacare drove up my family premiums by more than 50% over two years, but we couldn’t find one that covered our family … only individuals. I’ve heard that’s changed, but we don’t need the coverage currently.
Under a high-deductible health plan, you pay for all your medical expenses, except for qualified preventive care (which the ACA made mandatory), up to the annual deductible. After that, some plans pay 100 percent of your covered medical expenses. Others initially pay a share of your medical bills (maybe 80 percent) before paying 100 percent when you reach an out-of-pocket maximum.
These plans are sometimes referred to as catastrophic health insurance plans, but the name is not exactly accurate. Under health care reform, the plans must cover 100 percent of preventive care, even before you pay the deductible. Additionally, many of the plans cover a full range of health care services – not just hospital and emergency medical costs you might associate with catastrophic care. So, if you’re someone with a chronic disorder, you still might use health insurance coverage for regular doctors’ visits after the deductible is satisfied.
But how do you pay for the medical care you need before the deductible is satisfied? Often the HDHP is paired with a tax-advantaged Health Savings Account. HSA-qualified, high-deductible health plans have been covered by federal law since 2004. These plans are coupled with a health savings account that lets you set aside pre-tax money to use for medical care today. In recent years, these plans have been reformed to allow them to roll over from year to year and now you can even pass them to your heirs.
Consumers shopping for affordable individual health insurance were the first to gravitate toward HSA-eligible plans, followed by small employers, but larger businesses are now looking at them as well. In the latest data, nearly 17.4 million Americans were covered by “health savings account/high-deductible health plans” in 2014, which was a 12 percent increase over 2013. Since 2011, HSA plans have grown on average 15 percent annually.
Currently, not all high-deductible health plans can be paired with an HSA. To qualify for HDHP status in 2016, the plan must have a deductible of at least $1,300 for an individual and $2,600 for a family. Out-of-pocket maximums can be no more than $6,550 for an individual and $13,100 for a family. My former small-group employer has employees paying $1000 a month for an “ordinary” insurance plan that has similar parameters, so they wouldn’t be losing much with an HDHP.
You can contribute up to $3,350 per year in pre-tax dollars to an HSA as an individual or up to $6,750 as a family. You can save an additional $1,000 in the account if you’re 55 or older.
The money in the account grows tax-free, and in some cases companies that service the accounts provide investment options, such as mutual funds to promote further savings growth.
When you withdraw the funds, you don’t have to pay taxes so long as the withdrawals you take are for qualified medical expenses, such as the HDHP’s deductible or medical costs not covered under the plan, including dental and vision care. You can even save for long-term care not covered by Medicare.
An HSA account is portable. Even if you switch to a different type of health plan or change employers, the money is still yours to spend on health care.
They’re a no-brainer for the young and healthy, but Rick believes they’re well-suited for all age- and health groups. There are currently 20 million active HSA accounts in the US, but expansion plans could increase the number significantly.
“I believe everyone should be in charge of their own health care decisions. These plans mean that consumers care how much medical care costs. It incentivizes them to make informed decisions. Last year, my son chose to forego expensive surgery in favor of physical therapy to correct an orthopedic injury. He’s back doing stupid athletic things in less time than the recovery from surgery would have been. He’s less likely to hurt himself in the future because he’s learned a great deal about body mechanics. If he’d been covered by “full-coverage” insurance, he would have been less conscious of the costs and asked fewer questions about the alternatives. Yes, he cost a surgeon a lot of money, but that money went to a physical therapist, a gym membership, and whatever investments his HSA is attached to. Yes, Lela, I read “The Broken Window” by Bastiat when you suggested it and I can apply it.” Rick (a doctor)
Rick supports the government funding HSA’s for lower-income people, paired with a HDHP, as an alternative to the one-size-fits-all (but it doesn’t) current medical insurance scheme. It would save the government money in the long run and it would force people to pay attention to their own medical care decisions and by the time someone turned 18 and was responsible for their own health care, they’d have plenty of money in the account to act as a cushion for any future medical expenses.
So when Rick and I started our series, we didn’t yet know what Congress was going to propose for certain, but they came out with the House plan now (March 8), so we decided to write up our impressions.
The draft House health insurance bill fails to correct the features of Obamacare that drove up health insurance and medical care costs and mainly just tweaks Obamacare’s financing and subsidy structure.
The bill focuses on protecting those who gained subsidized coverage through the law’s exchange subsidies and Medicaid expansion, while failing to correct Obamacare’s misguided insurance regulations that drove up premiums for Americans buying coverage without government subsidies.
The draft bill leaves Obamacare’s costly insurance regulations in place and attempts to offset those costs with the same basic approach.
Approximately 22 million individuals currently receive subsidized health insurance coverage through the exchanges (8 million) and the Medicaid expansion (14 million). For them, Obamacare’s higher insurance costs are offset by the law’s subsidies.
About 25 million Americans with unsubsidized individual-market coverage (10 million people) or small-employer plans (15+ million people) are the ones who most need relief from Obamacare that can only be supplied by repeal, and they probably don’t care about or for replacement. Their experience of Obamacare has basically been “all pain, no gain,” as they have been subjected to significant premium increases and coverage dislocations with no offsetting subsidies.
Unfortunately, the draft House bill provides no meaningful relief for that group of middle-class Americans who are most adversely affected by Obamacare and are most supportive of repeal.
The draft bill leaves Obamacare’s costly insurance regulations in place and attempts to offset those costs with even more subsidies.
The draft bill’s new Patient and State Stability Fund is particularly problematic. It would provide grants to states of up to a total of $100 billion over the nine years, 2018-2026. What are the significant problems with this new program? They’re substantial.
- It substitutes new funding for old Obamacare funding without adequately addressing the misguided Obamacare insurance market rules and subsidy design that made the exchanges a magnet for high-cost patients. Those Obamacare mistakes created an insupportable burden on the individual insurance market by concentrating expensive patients in only that small portion of the total market.
- Like Obamacare, it doesn’t actually reduce premiums, but rather uses subsidies to mask the effects of Obamacare provisions that drove up premiums in the first place.
- It creates a new entitlement for states.
Furthermore, without a resulting reduction in unsubsidized premium levels, future Congresses will likely face pressure from states and constituents to extend and expand the program. It will become a creeping Medicaid-like drain on resources that will destroy medical care access in this country. Under the Medicaid expansion, the federal government reimbursed states 100 percent of the cost of expanding Medicaid to able-bodied adults, with federal support eventually declining to 90 percent. These are able-bodied people who earn a living (in Alaska, up to $52,000 a year for a family of four) and their medical care is paid for by the taxpayers.
Yet, states continue to receive significantly less federal assistance (50 percent to 75 percent, depending on the state) for covering the more vulnerable populations (such as poor children and the disabled) that the program was intended for. That policy was both inequitable and unaffordable.
The draft bill does not correct that inequity, but rather reduces the enhanced match rate from 95 percent to 80 percent. The better approach would be to allow states to immediately cap expansion population enrollment, while also setting federal reimbursement for any new expansion enrollees at normal state match rates.
Such changes would likely limit the addition of new individuals to the program, and also substantially reduce the size of the federal revenue loss that expansion states will incur when the program terminates. That is because a significant share of current enrollees can be expected to leave the program for other coverage during the transition period.
Yet another policy mistake is the failure to take the first step toward providing more equitable tax treatment of health insurance.
The House version drops a proposed cap on the unlimited tax exclusion on employment-based health insurance contained in an earlier version, while retaining the so-called “Cadillac tax”—the 40 percent excise tax on so-called “high-cost plans”—and delaying its implementation until 2025.
Congress should kill this punitive excise tax and replace it with a cap on pre-tax funding so as to encourage employers & workers to evaluate the trade-off between higher health care spending and higher cash wages, to rethink how much of total employee compensation should be devoted to health benefits.
While the Cadillac tax would force employers to alter the health benefit plans that they provide their workers, no such effect would result from the cap on the exclusion. It would instead limit the amount of employer health benefits that constitute pre-tax income to workers, which would make the tax treatment of employer-sponsored health benefits consistent with the tax treatment of other benefits (such as retirement savings plans, group life insurance, and dependent care) offered by employers.
Workers would still be able to use after-tax income to purchase additional coverage, just as they can with other employer benefits, and the employer would still be able to offer a plan whose value exceeds the level of the cap on pre-tax funding.
This bill misses the mark primarily because it fails to correct the features of Obamacare that drove up health care costs. Congress should continue to focus on first repealing the failed policy of Obamacare and then act to offer patient-centered, market-based replacement reforms. Stop making patients into a group where things are done to them and put them back in control of their own health care.
So, what’s in Rand Paul’s Obamacare Replacement Act (S. 222)? I couldn’t find a convenient cut-and-paste, so I went to the act text myself and started listing the specifics. To make it easier on myself, I paraphrased in some instances. The text of the bill is here, so you can check it out for yourself.
Understand that this is what’s going on in the Senate as opposed to the House. Hopefully, the admixing of the two will provide an improved product. At this point in time, the (House) American Health Care Act is pretty bad, but Paul’s plan is much much better. It still doesn’t address entitlements, but it’s a step in the right direction.
- Repeal the individual and employer mandates, rating restrictions, rate review, essential health benefits requirement, medical loss ratio, and other insurance mandates.
- Provides 2-year open-enrollment period under which individuals with pre-existing conditions can obtain coverage.
- Restores HIPAA pre-existing conditions protections, which guaranteed those in the group market could obtain continuous health coverage regardless of preexisting conditions.
- Equalizes the tax treatment of the purchase of medical insurance for individuals and employers by providing a universal deduction on both income and payroll taxes regardless of how an individual obtains their insurance. This equalizes the premium burden between the individual and group markets while not interfering with the employer-provided coverage.
- Provides individuals the option of a tax credit of up to $5,000 per taxpayer for contributions to an Health Savings Account while allowing contributions contributions to remain tax preferred. It also removes the maximum contribution limit to HSA, so if you can save for surgery or extended care treatment. Eliminates the requirement that a participant in an HSA be enrolled in a high deductible health care plan. Also enables individuals who are eligible for Medicare, VA benefits, TRICARE, Indian Health Service, and health care sharing ministries to be eligible to establish an HSA.
- Allows HSA funds to be used to purchase insurance or pay insurance premiums.
- Allows an account holder to rollover HSA to spouse, child, parent, or grandparent.
- HSA’s would be protected similarly to retirement accounts during bankruptcy.
- Certain exercise equipment and physical fitness programs would be treated as medical care.
- Nutritional and dietary supplements would be treated as medical care.
- Doctor access fees could be paid from HSA funds.
- HSAs could be used for pre-paid physician fees, as in direct practice medicine.
- Allows Medicare enrollees to contribute their own money to the Medicare Medical Savings Accounts.
- Amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow a physician a tax deduction equal to the amount the physical would otherwise charge for charity medical care or uncompensated care due to bad debt, up to 10% of the physician’s gross income for the taxable year.
- Establishes Independent Health Pools (IHPs) to allow individuals to pool together for the purpose of purchasing insurance. This would include non-profit organizations, including churches, trade associations, etc.
- Requires that the IHP will provide insurance through contracts with insurance issues in fully insured plans and not self-insure.
- Allows insurers to sell policies in all states. (There are exceptions. Go to the text for clarity).
- Allows Association Health Plans (AHPs) which allow small businesses to pool together across state lines through their membership in trade or professional association. (In other words, small groups can now become large groups). While AHPs currently exist, strict ERISA requirements are nearly impossible to meet. (Again, a complicated point, so go to the text for clarity)
- Provides an exemption from Federal antitrust laws for health care professionals (excluded from the NLRA) engaged in negotiations with a health plan regarding the terms of a contract under which the professionals provide health care items or services.
- Provides new flexibilities to state in their Medicaid plan design, in order to test new coverage rules without interference from federal agencies.
- Amends the definition of “health insurance coverage) to clarify that stop-loss insurance is not health insurance. This is designed to prevent the federal government from using rule-making to restrict the availability of stop-loss insurance used by self-insured plans.
And, yeah, that’s the whole thing. It’s four pages. The highlighted text are the suggestions Rick has been making for years.
Rand Paul’s plan is much more free market than the GOP House plan. It still doesn’t go far enough, but it does away with most of the things in Obamacare that are going to bankrupt the middle class and the government and returns health care, medical care and medical insurance decisions to the people, where they should always have remained.
According to the media and the CBO, about 20 million (could be 24 million) Americans will lose their “health care” under the GOP plan to replace (uh, tweak) Obamacare.
I’d be horrified if I knew what that meant. How exactly could I, an active, healthy, middle-aged person who eats (relatively) healthily and enjoys the outdoors (in some months) “lose” my health care? It’s not a cell phone or sweater that can be stolen or left on a park bench. Health care is what I do to keep myself health – diet, exercise, avoiding risky behaviors (uh, except for going into the Alaska wilderness well-armed) and not abusing drugs, including alcohol. I did that before Obamacare was enacted and I will continue doing it after that mistake is reformed or collapses of its own bureaucratic inefficiencies. It really can’t be taken from me because it doesn’t rely on anyone else but me.
You see, health care is not medical care. The terms “healthcare”, “medical care” and “medical insurance” are often used synonymously, but they really have radically different meanings. No, we’re not talking semantics here. There are serious policy implications of using the wrong words. This sort of lazy use of language by the media and politicians leads to an entitled attitude among the people.
Medical care or treatment is what you seek from medical professionals when you have a medical problem and aren’t in good health. See the difference? When I become unhealthy, I seek medical care because my health care has proven inadequate.
Medical insurance is what you obtain to protect yourself financially from a catastrophic illness or injury requiring expensive medical treatment.
Back before Obamacare, you could save a lot of money by taking care of your health (health care). Brad and I only ever satisfied our deductibles when we had babies or when our daughter needed braces. That’s because we work hard on our health care. Not everyone does, however.
The total cost of medical care in the US would be significantly reduced if Americans simply took care of their health. Examples?
- Overeating is estimated to cost the nation $200 billion for the treatment of diabetes and heart disease alone, not including joint problems caused by being overweight.
- Smoking-related medical problems are estimated to cost the nation $133 billion.
- Alcohol and drug abuse add another $350 billion.
- Sexually-transmitted diseases add $16 billion.
- Reckless driving and other reckless behavior add untold billions more.
And none of these figures include the cost of Social Security Disability payments or other income support for those incapable of working due to medical problems stemming from overeating, smoking, drug addiction, sexually-transmitted diseases or reckless behavior.
Using these figures, the total cost of preventable illnesses and injuries is $699 billion at the minimum. We could round it to a nice neat $1 trillion when all the other costs are included. That’s $2,184 to $3,125 per citizen. In other words, the 30% of the population that foregoes health care (by not taking care of their health) are inflicting these medical care costs on everyone else.
There are those who will insist that society has a moral responsibility to provide medical care to those who can’t afford it, but virtually nothing is mentioned about the moral responsibility of individuals to not inflict costs on the rest of society because they lack self-control and self-respect.
So why doesn’t the media cover that? Take a really good look at the advertising on media and you’ll see the reason. Notice all the commercials for drugs and snake oils to address the infirmities and conditions stemming from a lack of personal health care. They would lose advertising dollars if they addressed the real issues of health care rather than demanding that we all pay for the medical care of everyone else.
When Obamacare first came under consideration, it was designed to address the approximately 6% of the country that lacked health insurance. Many of these people were healthy and health-caring individuals who didn’t want to pay for health insurance, but we were told we had a moral obligation to force them to submit and spend money on something they didn’t feel the need to buy. It’s a lot easier to put pressure on 6% of the country than on 30% of the country. So, no politician in his right mind would dare bring up the issue of health care when he could focus on the feel-good topic of medical care.
Let’s be honest about this. Very few people need anything more than a high-deductible medical insurance policy with a health savings account. The 70% of us who take care of our health generally don’t consume a lot of medical care. Common sense dictates that you have a low-premium, high deductible policy so that you can pool risk of a catastrophic illness with others, but it’s really pretty silly that we think we can’t afford over-the-counter medications and contraception. The vast majority of us could if we spent our money wisely. Yet, here in the United States medical care/insurance ranks 5th behind housing, food, cars, and entertainment. In other words, we subsidize medical care/insurance so that the masses can buy “stuff” rather than save money toward their old age and so that old people don’t have to move in with their kids when they stop making an income.
The cowardly framers of public opinion say that medical care/insurance must be socialized (provided by the government) because it’s a fundamental necessity. Oddly, they don’t advocate the same for food, shelter, clothing and transportation. Well, there were a few Obama czars who were hardcore Marxists who might have liked to see these industries socialized for the “good of the poor”, but they knew Americans would object to being forced en mass to buy their food in government markets, live in public housing, wear a standard uniform of clothing, and ride the same model of bicycles to work. Even the Chinese have finally rejected that way of life. Still, the American poor are kept dependent upon targeted social-welfare programs, such as food stamps, housing vouchers, and free-ish medical care through Medicaid.
Of course, if you debate these folks, they will insist that medical care/insurance is different. It doesn’t have the immediacy of food, shelter, clothing, and transportation. Because it’s not something people need every day, it requires people to plan ahead, defer gratification, make trade-offs, and save for medical emergencies. Valid point. The 30% of the population that doesn’t take care of its health probably has difficulties in these areas as well.
May I submit that there are ways of addressing this sad side of human nature other than socializing the entire medical industry, engaging in massive income transfers, or hatching unwieldy centralized plans in Congress that will only serve to raise costs and make people even less willing to take care of their health. Rick and I have been hinting at this through this series, but you can also find these ideas in many other sources including medical journals.
Simply put, you don’t put the problems of the 30% of the population who are poor decision-makers on the backs of the 70% who are able to think ahead. Instead, you find a way to address just the 30% and let the 70% go on making good decisions for themselves.
Although Rick and I were skeptical of Rand Paul’s plan before the text was available and still believe it needs to go further, it is certainly better than what the House GOP is offering with the American Health Care Act. It’s filled with details that put good decision-makers back in control of their own health care, which includes medical insurance in case they need medical treatment. Check it out. https://www.paul.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/ObamacareReplacementActSections.pdf