Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
John Stossel :: Townhall.com Columnist
Getting medical insurance from your boss is a bad idea
by John Stossel
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


According to the new "ABC News" poll on health care, Americans are eager to have the government force employers to provide heath insurance: "Nearly eight in 10 favor a federal requirement that all employers offer insurance to their full-time workers."

Why?! Do our employers pay for our food, clothing, or shelter? If they did, why would that be good? Having my health care tied to my boss invites him to snoop into my private health issues, and if I change jobs, I lose coverage.

Employer-paid health insurance isn't free. It just means we get insurance instead of higher salaries. I'd rather have the cash and buy my own insurance. Companies only provide it because of a World War II-era tax break that never went away.

But people think it's something for nothing. In Maryland, the legislature even tried to single out Wal-Mart for a special employee health-insurance mandate. Luckily, the courts struck down that law. It would have some cost workers their jobs, and all of them would have been paid less.

Anyway, insurance is a terrible way to pay for things. It's expensive and wasteful. Some years ago, an insurance CEO said that it costs $35-$50 to process a $25 claim.

Insurance burdens us with paperwork, invites cheating, and, worst of all, creates a moral hazard that distorts incentives. The first question people ask a doctor who recommends a test is not "Do I really need that?" but "Does my insurance cover it?" Insurance raises costs by insulating consumers from medicine's real prices.

Suppose you had grocery insurance. With your employer paying 80 percent of the bill, you would fill the cart with lobster and filet mignon. Everything would cost more because demand would rise and supermarkets would stop running sales. Why should they -- when their customers barely care about the price?

Suppose everyone had transportation insurance. The roads would be crowded with Mercedes. Why buy a Chevy if your employer pays?

We have gotten so used to having "other people" pay for most of our heath care that we routinely ask for insurance with low or no deductibles. This is another bad idea.

Suppose car insurance worked that way. Every time you got a little dent or the paint faded, or every time you bought gas or changed the oil, you'd fill out endless forms and wait for reimbursement from your insurance company. Gas and mechanic's prices would quickly rise because service stations would know that you no longer cared about the price. You'd become more wasteful: jackrabbit starts, speeding, wasted gas. Who cares? At most you're paying 20 percent of the bill.

Insurance invites waste. That's a reason health care costs so much, and is often so consumer-unfriendly. In the few areas where there are free markets in health care -- such as cosmetic medicine and LASIK eye surgery -- customer service is great, and prices continue to drop.

The ABC News poll suggests that people understand that. When asked about "consumer-directed plans," "nearly eight in 10 Americans think that allowing people to shop around for their own medical care would be an effective way to control costs." But many people still want a free lunch: "consumer-driven care looks less popular if it's accompanied by the risk of higher out-of-pocket expenses."

Somehow people seem to believe "insured" means free.

This is not to say that we don't need insurance. We need it to protect us against financial catastrophes that could result from a stroke or heart attack. That's why Health Savings Accounts, which cover smaller out-of-pocket health expenditures, are paired with high-deductible catastrophic insurance. That's a good thing.

But America's demand that insurance cover everything from pets to dental work puts us on slide toward bankruptcy.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
John Stossel blogs at http://blogs.abcnews.com/johnstossel/ is an award-winning news correspondent and author of Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel--Why Everything You Know is Wrong.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read John Stossel's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Amen, Brother John
Great column.

The key element: "people think it's something for nothing"

Yep. That's the big problem. People are basically stupid that way. And they don't have to even pass a literacy test to vote.

Scares me to death for the future of this country.

Many people...
...in the USA get all of their medical care for free. They are known as "the uninsured". The bills they avoid are passed on to me in the form of higher hospital and doctor costs, and also raise my premiums each year. Then, too, there are the ever-improving medical machines and testing to pay for. I worked in the medical field for almost 30 years, and it does not take a "stroke or heart attack" to ruin a person or family financially. A week in the hospital for routine surgery can run to $100K. When my doctor orders a test or procedure, I happen to have the background to KNOW that the requested test is necessary. I do not second guess her, and, in fact, often suggest things to her.

Being an informed consumer of healthcare is more than just shopping for the cheapest insurance or brow-beating your doctor. It's also about living a healthy lifestyle and understanding the basics of how the human body functions, and how and why things go wrong. It's really not rocket science.

Good column.
A few thoughts though...
I am not sure that getting health insurance through an employer necessarily means the employer will be snooping into your health privacy. If you are calling off sick for various reasons I think your employer will be finding info out that way more. My husband's business has offered health care benefits for years to employees as an additional benefit. The business does not go around checking out each and every employees health history, claims, etc. They just pay the premiums for the employee. Recently they went to high deducible plans for employees but then they set aside a special account to help employees for expenses under that. These are tax deductions for the business. As a business can get group health insurance every employee can get coverage regardless of health issues and often group health is less expensive than individual policies (plus individual policies are getting hard to come by if one is older or has chronic health problems.) Three years ago my husband and I went the HSA route. Being older it was not easy getting approved and we have several riders on our policy. The company has refused to remove the riders because we take medication for the conditions...medication that is preventative and is the reason we do not get sick in the first place! Trying to reason that out with the company has been fruitless; and the riders remain! At first the HSA premiums were quite low, but now they are escalating rapidly even though we have a $5000 deductible. HSA's were supposed to prevent double digit rate increases, but somehow that has not happened. It still is a better deal than regular insurance though. The other problem we have had is getting prescriptions. Even though we pay for them out of pocket as part of the deductible, the insurance company wants to limit how often we can get refills, insists on
"pre-authorization" before we can even get certain Rx's, and other delay tactics. We finally gave up and just get our medications through a wholesale club, bypassing insurance altogther (which of course the insurance company likes because the meds are not being applied to the $5000 deductible.) It is great being able to put aside each year the amount of the deductible into an HSA account though, as it is a tax deduction and a savings account for medical expenses.

National Health Insurance
Let the democrats have their European style national health insurance that they're pushing. Free health care for everyone! I live in Germany and this "free" health care costs my family a little over $400 a month. And long waits at the doctor's office. The doctors are overworked and underpaid. The insurance companys restrict doctors as to what therapys they are allowed to prescribe.
Vote democrat, and you can have the same thing!

Competition / capitalism
You would think the writer had never heard of capitalism. Larger buyers can negotiate discounts and competition among them keeps down prices. So even if the insurance is taken out of your wages it is less than an individual can often buy a comparable plan for. The employee also wins as they are paying less and ensure their staff have medical problems taken care of early.

That’s why in countries with more competing bodies paying for healthcare it is cheaper than in US for both the government covering basic healthcare, and for companies and individuals with private schemes - competition.

I cound'nt care less
I'll take my chances. I have medical and always have. I had gall stones for a few years, they got really bad as I turned white and bent over in pain, I prayed to Almighty God and 1 1/2 years later, no gall stones. The doctors told me to have surgery, I did'nt. Praise Jesus. I really don't want to go to doctors and I know you think I'm nuts, but I am 51 yrs. old and feel great. I eat all I want, am 5'6 weigh 130 pounds. I have no desire to get plastic surgery or any of the much obbessed over pratices of this age. I love Jesus and he loves me. That my salvation. Amen!!!!

"Free"
The basic tenet of Socialism is "you can have everything you want, the instant you want it, and somebody else will pay." That's all "Free" really means, you know -- it means that YOU don't have to lay out the cash at the point of purchase. And that is the fevered dream of all the teenagers who have replaced adults in the United States and Canada: that they can have what their parents have and their parents will continue to pay -- forever. My "free" health care in Ontario, Canada costs me $300.00 per month, and if you don't think that comes right out of what would otherwise be my salary, then you won't understand that after eight years I am finally back to the level of pay I was earning when I left the USA. And the fun part is that I can't actually get the services. It took me six years to get a family doctor and I only found one through someone at the office.

Besides that, the "free" health insurance doesn't cover anything that actually happens to the average person, so we have a combination of 'gap' insurance and health savings account credits as part of our benefits (ka-ching!). Incidentally, almost no one in my section at work had any idea what the Health Savings Account credits were FOR. Last week I heped a woman file $400.00 worth of claims after the warning notice came down that if you didn't claim it, you were going to lose it. Word spread thereafter. I grew up under capitalism and I worked in Insurance. They just take whatever Mama and Daddy hand them. "Free" insurance makes people passive.

Daddy's recent pacemaker surgery cost $63,000.00 give or take. It was the 6th pacemaker for him in the last 20 years. If not for insurance he'd have been dead many years ago. And a lot of it wasn't covered by Medicare. In fact, Daddy pays just about the same $300 per month voluntarily for the insurance that covers what he really needs, as I "pay" inadvertently for my "Free" health care up here. And not only that, but Mama's insurance is another $200.00 per month. When your Social Security and pension amounts to $1200 per month, that's a nice big bite. How on earth would they pay, even if they had time to do all that "shopping around" in Alabama at the ages of 86 and 79?

Look, it's not perfect. Nothing is. But having lived with employer-based insurance and "Free" health care, I don't see enough difference to matter.

Sorry...
I'll take the insurance from my employer, thank you.

1. They don't pay what I would have to pay as an individual for my family They get a big group discount.

I looked into buying insurance for my family of five over the years. You pay the premiums AND the deductibles.

2. There are no exclusions. Your spouse have diabetes? They're covered.
You dealing with high blood pressure? It's covered. Without question and without "exclusions" or "riders".

And those who aren't employed? Sorry, their health care IS "free"...to them. Look at your check next time you are paid. I live in CA and a nice chunk of money goes to fund "free" healthcare for the poor, the homeless, the illegal aliens...everyone who isn't covered. Ah, but they are covered.

By me. And you. And everyone who pays taxes.

You can walk into any ER in this state and receive full care, including every test available to you and your ability to pay cannot questioned.

Courtesy of me. And all the other citizens of the state of California.

I know, I'm an ER nurse and been in the game for 28 years.

Mandatory Car Insurance
Silicondoc,

The kinds of car insurance that are mandatory are there to protect other people, not the person buying insurance. The law does not require you to carry insurance for theft of your car, or for damage to it due to a collision, a fire, or a natural catastrophe such as a flood or a hurricane. It only requires liability insurance so if your car causes an accident that injures someone or damages their property the victim can have his medical bills paid and his property restored.

Even comprehensive auto insurance that is required by the bank when you get a car loan does not exist to benefit the buyer. It is there to protect the bank's financial interest in your car when the car itself is used as collateral for the loan.

Health insurance takes care of only the buyer (and his family).

Because of this distinction the analogy you offer does not apply. If I choose not to protect myself with health insurance that is my right as a free American. If I choose to take the risk that my car may be stolen and I will be left with no compensation for it that is also my right. And nobody but me will suffer. I do not have the same right to choose not to protect potential victims of damage that my automobile may cause.


costs
My employer pays almost 500 bux a month and I pay around 260/month on medical coverage for my family.

No one here can tell me that I couldn't either:
1. Take that 760/month and get catastrophic coverage.
2. Simply buy a policy which fits my needs from 760 or less.

More government is not the answer.

Uninsured.....
I'm 48 years old, self-employed, American by birth, and have no health insurance. I bought short-term health insurance once, because I was going to buy a horse, and my track record as a rider is that I get thrown - frequently.... So, after I had to bail off the horse, broke my back, quit riding the horse, and healed up, I haven't bought any more health insurance.

My women friends with health insurance go to the doctor for every little thing - those with and without children. They never wait to see if they'll just get over it. Me, on the other hand, if I get sick, depending on how bad I feel, I try to wait it out. I might wait 2 or 3 or 4 weeks to let myself get better before I deside to visit a doctor. If it is truly unbearable or worrying, I go the same day the symptoms occur.

They also get every prescription known to man filled. I, on the other hand, might receive 4 prescriptions from the doctor, but based upon his advice, might only fill one or two of them -- or none! Doctors like to give treatment, but they know that not all is likely to be efficacious.

For big ticket things, like major dental work, I explain to the treating doctor that I want the minimum done: no new fillings just to match my tooth color, et cetera. For major dental work, I pay cash or pay with a credit card.

Pretty soon, I'll be buying medical insurance, just because at my age it is getting to be a good idea, but up to now, I've known my risks and purchased insurance and restricted my activities accordingly.

I will say, I really resented walking into the emergency room after the day after I broke my back (I could not stand the idea of paying for an ambulance, and it took me a day to accept the fact I was going to have to pay for medical care, even with the 80/20 insurance), that the hospital assumed because I walked in, I could actually sit upright in a chair for two hours and wait. I was in utter misery trying to sit upright in that chair, in that air-conditioned room, while they waited on the Mexicans ahead of me. At least they finally gave me a blanket.

Yes, the hyper-consumers of medical care, i.e. the insured, dazzle me with their gluttony.

Hey Kim,
I don't believe that the employer health program is always the best option (it's not for me), but you are on target about no one in this country being without on-demand health care.

Anyone who has no insurance can walk into a hospital and get treatment. I experienced that myself when I sprained my ankle and explained to the ER nurse that my "catastrophic" insurance policy doesn't cover ER visits and has a $3,000 deductible.

I was sent to a special area of the waiting room reserved for people with no insurance. I had to wait for a special health care administrator to come out and interview me to see if I qualified for free care. It took several repititions by me that I was very wealthy, could write a check for the entire ER bill, and owned lots of real estate that I suspected would have to be sold before I could qualify for any kind of government handout before she would allow me to be treated and pay with a credit card (they would have been happy to help me for free, but they wouldn't take my check).

My sister works as a hospital adminstrator. When I asked her what this was all about she explained that all hospitals apply for and receive government funding to pay for the care of patients who have no money and no insurance. The amount they receive each year is partly based on how many such patients they serviced, and the total cost to do so.

Kim
The point of the article is that government is making laws to force employers to cover employees.

This dries up other options in the marketplace.

If employers want to offer insurance then they will, no one is suggesting they cannot.

I agree, sort of
As I was reading this editorial, I wondered where it was leading. It finally said the right thing. "This is not to say that we don't need insurance. We need it to protect us against financial catastrophes that could result from a stroke or heart attack. That's why Health Savings Accounts, which cover smaller out-of-pocket health expenditures, are paired with high-deductible catastrophic insurance. That's a good thing." Some years ago, my beautiful wife became terminally ill with cancer. Due to the "miracle of modern medicine" I had her with me for 2 extra years. The quarter million it cost was covered be company insurance. PTL. But indeed all insurance should be for catastrophic problems. And company health insurance is tax free, so why not take advantage. So I think John got it right in the end, and hopefully those reading will read the whole thing.

It's the Incentives
An employer has an incentive to find the cheapest insurance, not the most appropriate for the patient.

The doctor has an incentive to satisfy the insurance company, not the patient.

The insurance company has an incentive to satisfy the employer, not the patient.

The patient isn't in the loop at all! They don't pay for the service, nor for the insurance, nor do they have any say in what coverage is purchased. With no leverage at all, is it any surprise that the level of service is so abysmal?

Better to take responsibility for your own costs to the extent possible and cover what you cannot with insurance coverage you pay for. Then the insurance company has an incentive to satisfy you as their customer. You have an incentive to control costs. The doctor has an incentive to satisfy you as their customer. And your employer has no basis to intrude into your personal health matters and can focus on making widgets. Amazing how well things work with the proper incentives. Medical costs would go down, wait times would be shorter, insurance companies would have to provide good service or lose custombers, doctors could focus on medicine instead of insurance regulations and billing minutae.

Co paid health insurance
It is remarkable how uninformed the population is about health care costs. If the employer pays, then its free. If we pay, it costs us. How ridiculous! Actually, we either pay in less take home pay or out of higher wages. My personal preference would be Medical Savings Accounts with insurance for over $3000 in annual claims where the employer puts some money into the pot and I put some in as well. That way, I would know exactly how much the employer paid, I would own the kitty, I could choose what medical care I wanted, and I could use the doctors of my choice. When will people finally realize there is no free lunch. I don't believe I have a right to order vanity prescription drugs or exotic medical procedures simply because its "free" to spend other peoples money (OPM). Get real America ----

Billy Bob in NJ

I think as we all know on this site...
...that corporations don't pay for medical insurance any more than they pay taxes.All they do is collect the money from their customers and turn it over to the appropiate agency,be it the local,state,or federal government.It is a legal fiction to treat corporations as individual persons.Only individuals are capable of paying taxes or expenses of businesses.

The politician who runs for election and tells the people he is going to tax the "rich" corporations knows exactly what he is doing.The corporations pass the tax on to their customers in the form of prices of their products.If they can't,they are out of business,so the whole point becomes moot.This is true of all government mandated expenses on the business.Even if you buy your own health insurance you are also going to buy health insurance for all those who take company insurance.You must buy some things,car,home,food,etc.Just because the cost is hidden doesn't mean you aren't paying for it.You are.Smoke and mirrows come to mind.

Sign in a hospital waiting room
"If you do not have health insurance and you cannot pay for your treatment, ask about our programs for reducing the charges"
(The wording isn't verbatum, but the content is accurate.)
So, for those who have insurance, this hospital will charge whatever they want. Patients who are paying out of their own pockets are offered a chance to get a break.

Discount healthcare
That's what many of my coworkers have, even though they do have money deducted each pay cycle for work health insurance. I'm talking about those people who knowingly subject themselves to all sorts of unhealthy or downright dangerous activities. I'm sure many of you will see this if you look around your workplace.

Next time you step outside of your office for lunch, look for some coworkers who chain smoke right outside the door. Then among those smokers, count how many are obese. You'll probably see the same obese smokers waddle over to the nearest fast food outlet and carry back about 600-700 calories of heart clogging food along w/ an ice cold almond latte w/ all the trimmings on top. These are the people who either are currently or will be soon on the verge of having diabetes type II, along w/ numerous other ailments such as heart diseases and emphysema or lung cancer. How many tests do you think doctors will have to run or how many different medications will these people have to take for treatment? How close do you think these people's annual healthcare cost come to the plan's maximum limit?

Of course, the rest of us are paying for all of that, especially if you're in the same health plan. Of course their out of pocket costs are higher, but I think those costs should be even higher. What's wrong w/ assessing a surcharge for folks who refuse to take appropriate steps to remedy their health conditions? Why should healthy folks have to subsidize someone else's decision to abuse themselves? Certainly no one is paying for my healthclub membership. I'm not getting any money back for not having any medical procedures or treatment each year. Wouldn't that be more fair? I'm not talking about everyone having to be in an athletic shape, but enough is enough of the abuse they put on their health, which in turn affects everyone else in society.

Also, the amount of time these irresponsible people take as sick time is another factor that adversely affect everyone else.

So, personally, no employer paid healthcare can ever be good. It may be good for those who wants a free lunch on someone else, but for sensible people who take care of themselves, it's nothing more than socialism. And for that, no f**king way, no thanks, not again.

I bet if each person's healthcare cost is directly proportional to their state of health and if each person is totally responsible for his/her own cost, we'd see more people being conscious about how they live their lives. Not a bad thought, but it's an idea that'd never work here. The cries of liberals and their bleeding hearts would be too much for anyone to instill a change.


Meat for the Taking
John has only taped into a few of my frustrations as a health care consumer and supplier. First and foremost, the mentality that someone else pays for the product not only means wasteful utilization, but a divorce from critical thinking that everyday people apply to everyday purchases. When you buy a house, attention is paid to which area where you are willing to live, what is the condition of the property, is it worth it, is there an alternate choice.

People with expansive health coverage don’t take the time to consider everyday elements of consumption. They just offer themselves up as meat to their doctor or associated health care practitioner to consume their resources, by way of taking advantage of whatever the third party payer will bear. Any test or treatment that is ordered, patients are complicit, without fully participating by scrutinizing the benefits or value to them.

The process becomes one where a medical practice is reduced to playing a shell game. They end up treating according to the payer’s ability, not the patient’s condition. They exploit a good payer’s capability to offset a poor payer’s inability.

Medial device makers know how this kind of financial resource works and appeal to the doctor’s inherent desire to supply more sophisticated (expensive) equipment. So, you could say the health insurance industry is golden goose for an extremely high level of health care in this country.


John has only taped into a few of my frustrations as a health care consumer and supplier. First and foremost, the mentality that someone else pays for the product not only means wasteful utilization, but a divorce from critical thinking that everyday people apply to everyday purchases. When you buy a house, attention is paid to which area where you are willing to live, what is the condition of the property, is it worth it, is there an alternate choice.

People with expansive health coverage don’t take the time to consider everyday elements of consumption. They just offer themselves up as meat to their doctor or associated health care practitioner to consume their resources, by way of taking advantage of whatever the third party payer will bear. Any test or treatment that is ordered, patients are complicit, without fully participating by scrutinizing the benefits or value to them.

The process becomes one where a medical practice is reduced to playing a shell game. They end up treating according to the payer’s ability, not the patient’s condition. They exploit a good payer’s capability to offset a poor payer’s inability.

Medial device makers know how this kind of financial resource works and appeal to the doctor’s inherent desire to supply more sophisticated (expensive) equipment. So, you could say the health insurance industry is golden goose for an extremely high level of health care in this country.

Silicondoc, I feel your pain:
"Maybe medical costs are rising because heart transplants aren't just jarvic anymore and cutting out lower intestine tumors in tha ging population after the required and recommended exams after 50 yrs. old and the new decade lengthening life expectancy and hundreds of new procedures like non invasive camera surgery and specialized drugs and all sorts of in the womb baby pictures and endless multimillion dollar soundwave gallstone implosion machines cost more than 50 quarts of water and painful urinary passing..."

(A run on sentence worthy of a run on idea that sees no end)

But the answer to his/her question is the same answer to the chicken and egg question.


(A run on sentence worthy of a run on idea that sees no end)

But the answer to his/her question is the same answer to the chicken and egg question.

Discount Disease Care
I'm with you, Mr. Pooh. I don't need or want discount health care. I need discount "accident" care. I and my husband work hard to take care of our health so that we can avoid the dr. and hospital. We watch our diet (no Big Macs or fries on our menu), exercise, stay away from drugs of all kinds. And it works for us. It has to, because our "employer paid" insurance is to d--n expensive to afford. Then you have an accidental health problem, such as the one my husband suffered. He got an infection from a blister on his foot and the blood cultures found it to be an anaerobe (bacteria that can live in the soil and even on our bodies and survives without oxygen). And, NO, he is not diabetic. Our small amount of company provided supplemental insurance only paid $7000 of the $20,000 bill that we accrued after he had to have his toe amputated, because the "wonderful life-saving antibiotics" didn't do the job, and in fact made the problem even worse. I find it reprehensible that those who scarf down the Big Macs, smoke, are 200 pounds overweight and have a pharmacy in their bathroom are the ones who get the breaks with their disease care. It is those of us who work hard at staying healthy and have a stroke of bad luck who are harrassed into paying hospital bills that are unaffordable. "Health care" is a scam.

Discount Disease Care
I meant to say "employer provided" insurance. They don't pay for it. They just provide health insurance companies for you to choose from if you wish. They do offer a "paid" supplemental insurance which helps somewhat. But, I'm sure our taxes pay for it also.

Kim
Thanks! I had to take my daughter to the ER for a possible CHI after she wrecked our car. We waited through the night (six+ hours) for her to be examined. Other than us, the place was empty, and I saw at least ten hospital employees lollygagging around with nothing to do. I asked repeatedly for papers to sign about my insurance and personal data. They kept refusing. Finally, at dawn, as we were getting ready to leave, I insisted to the insurance clerk that she MUST make a copy of my insurance card. I demanded to know why she was not more eager to take this. She explained: "Most of our patients claim the accidents are not their fault, and many don't have insurance". I asked, "Then who pays their bills?" Her answer -- "No one". I told her that this is not acceptable, that I ALWAYS pay my bills, even if Blue Cross refuses (and they sometimes do). I understand perfectly well why medical costs are soaring.

I worked with the medically indigent as part of my job for many years. I carefully reviewed all of their charts, and I could see no difference in the level of care that they received than that of any "paying" patient. I am not suggesting that ALL uninsured people be turned away from the ER. But people should not be allowed avoid all responsibility to pay their medical bills without severe consequences.

wiseone, silicondoc: further
Car insurance isn't even mandatory at all. If you don't own a car, you don't have to have even the minimum insurance.

silicon doc...
Car insurance is not mandatory. Financial responsibility is. If you have the reserve resources to cover financial responsibility in the event you have an accident, you are not required to buy additional insurance. Most people are not in that position.

Furthermore, you can shop for insurance that provides different levels of coverage and different deductibles. When you get medical coverage from your employer and often elsewhere, you usually have fewer choices. Most people have figured out that they can get well-care coverage from their employer plans and that is similar to well-care coverage for your car. It would be prohibitively expensive to have coverage to pay for annual checkups on your car and periodic oil changes for some of the reasons Mr Stossel mentioned above.

Saving for a rainy day used to be a tried and true form of insurance that is passing out of our consciousness. Insurance works best when trying to mitigate rare but catastrophic risks where a large group face equal exposure, but when the event occurs, the consequences are born by 1 or a small number of the covered.

feedfwd
"Saving for a rainy day used to be a tried and true form of insurance that is passing out of our consciousness. Insurance works best when trying to mitigate rare but catastrophic risks where a large group face equal exposure, but when the event occurs, the consequences are born by 1 or a small number of the covered."

Fully agree.
This is the key problem with government providing *anything*. Instead of others attempting to provide anything *better* everyone just goes with what they are already forced to pay for(see Education).
Not to mention the fact that to get your tax money back you have to obey their rules. If you want to see a return on your taxes vis a vis education you have to behave like a good little Marxist/Athiest.

Another point
One subject that the column did not address is the person who can't buy health insurance at any price because of a chronic condition. For these persons a group policy is their only option. A few friends of mine had that problem even with the company that "has to" accept you at certain times of the year. Yeah, right. If they "have to" accept you then the premiums will be so high that you can either have health care or food on the table but not both.

Insurance companies also have leverage that individuals don't have on keeping prices in check; I know of a case or two in which being uninsured meant being fair game for gouging on some items (the ambulance ride is one of them).

Another item not addressed is the health care provider who bills the insurance company for tests and treatments not done. It's not rampant but it happens and we all pay for that too.

Also, the malpractice insurance that doctors and hospitals need is horrendously expensive (we can thank the large law firms specializing in tort cases for that) and is figured into the costs we all pay. In Massachusetts ca. the 80's the OB/GYNS went on strike because MP insurance was through the roof and the insurance companies were chintzy on payment because they knew the doctors had to accept assignment as full payment. When they refused to accept new patients one of the Boston papers ran an article titled, "Having a baby? See a lawyer."

I guess I'm lucky; I'm retired and have a Medicare HMO that's pretty good and is paid for by my former employer. Also, we don't abuse it.

A different solution
Stossel hits on the cost recognition problem of health care from only one angle. The use of medical services. The part that is not really felt by the employee how much the employer is paying in health care.

Real earnings have gone up for Americans, real wages have not. The difference is the increasing costs of health care for employers.

The solution would be to make the employer portion of the health care benefit taxable to the employee. After all the origination of this rule was to allow employers to get around the wage-price controls in place after WWII.

pay cash
i just assume save the money I would normally use to pay premiums, live a healthy life style, avoid unnecessary risks, and pay the doctor in cash. Thats what I do for dental and optical now. I figure I have 10-15 years more without serious medical expenses, I may as well continue to do so.

It helps if you live well within your means, but good luck convincing Americans to adjust to that.

The doctor loves taking a check or credit card, its less hassle and expense than insurance filing and more money in his pocket.

Partially Agree
John, I agree that government shouldn't force employers to provide health insurance for their employees. However, I must disagree with your assertion that health insurance bought on one's own (individual insurance) is a better deal than health insurance bought through an employer (group insurance). Nothing could be further from the truth. Group insurance is hands down the best. It has six major advantages: (1) No one can be excluded or forced to buy a "special" policy because of a poor health history, (2) it's cheaper (even when the employer contributes little or nothing towards its cost), (3) individuals can't be singled out for cancellation of their policies due to health problems, (4) individuals can't be singled out for rate increases, (5) it usually has much higher annual and lifetime maximums (6) and it usually covers a wider range of illnesses and services. The group insurance I currently have via my employer costs about one-third as much and is 10 times better than the individual policy I bought when I was temporarily unemployed.

The non-excluded provision is...
somewhat self regulating. If underwriters can identify risk factors, they will offer lower premiums to people without the risk factors who don't buy group policies. Even though group insurance may not be allowed to exclude, there will be selection. It will be disproportionately selected by people who can't get cheaper policies because of risk factors. So the premiums will be higher for the group simply for that reason.

Certainly, group policies will have lowewr premiums for people with risk factors than they could get otherwise. You have to wonder, also, just how much of the difference was actually a company benefit vs a group policy cost savings.

terry
Its only cheaper because of the meddling in healthcare by government and insurance companies.

In mediscare the doctor typically gets around 60% of his cost for a procedure. The net result is he elevates his cost to make up for the deficit. A doctor has to belong to HMO plans nowadays to get signicant business. Those insurers can dictate price but not cost. Doctors also provide discounts in many cases if you pay directly.

The reality is you don't KNOW what the price would be without meddling. I posted about my personal figures: 260$ paid by me, 500$ by my employer.

So you are telling me 760$ costs 1/3 as much as a individual policy?

Catastrophic coverage for my family runs around 200-300 dollars. That means 400-500 dollars a month extra. If I bank that amount(minus costs) I will have no problem with doctor visits, drugs and minor procedures.

AU H20 Fan
You write that cash paying customers to an ER can get a discount while the hospital can charge "whatever it wants" to the insurance company. You are seriously misinformed. Most insurance companies pay 50 to 70% of the usual charge (cash price) and the insurance company sets the charges in the contract. Individual doctors or hospitals are banned from collective bargaining (to counter the financial might of the insurance companies) by Federal statutes. Medicare pays pennies on the dollar; you can not even break even on what they pay. Moreover, ERs are the biggest money pits for many hospitals, so they have had to get smart about being paid. If a person can't afford a $2,000 bill they will simply not pay it. Cut that bill in half and they might pay some or all of it. If it becomes unprofitable enough, ERs will close.

NAM 65-66
First off, thanks for your service to your country. It is with gratitude to people like you that I am able to live and work and raise my children in a free society. I am an employer with 14 employees and I can guarantee you that I pay for their health insurance. If I stopped paying the premiums, that money would stay right in my pocket and they would not have coverage. It really is that simple. You are correct about businesses not paying taxes, though.

To Mrpooh and Patty
Yes, it would be great if insurance companies would give those of us who DO live healthy lifestyles CREDITS for healthy lifestyle choices and not seeking medical services or treatments unnecessarily. We tried to do this when getting our HSA individual policy because they wanted to penalize us for our age and currently treated minimal health conditions. Our health history and the fact that we seek medical services very rarely made no difference. Also the fact that we exercise regularly made no difference because we were still in that "high risk" age group and because our weights did not fit "their" specifications (not all people who are heavier are unhealthy simply because of a little excess weight.)

Secondly, given all the scare-mongering by many health professionals and special interest groups (another one of Stossel's subjects)over health concerns it is no wonder that people DO rush to seek medical care for every little thing based on the fact that "1 in 4 people" comes down with a certain illness (forget the fact that 3 out of 4 do not!)How often do your hear or read about the latest threat to our health and how this vaccine/treatment/test will just solve everything? Then add to that the constant media advertisements from pharmaceutical companies telling you that you have a problem, which was never a problem before the company decided to make it one, that needs to be treated with their medication. So then consumers rush to their health professional to get treated for everything imaginable under the sun. Then you add the costs of the uninsured to the pot and you have run-a-way health costs no matter who is paying (employer, employee, tax payer or insurance company.)

I'm old enough to remember...
... when my doctor used to make house calls when I was sick, and my Mom wrote him a check for the bill.

Of course, that was before the government, insurance companies, and lawyers got into the act.

Moral Hazards of Insurance
The call for "Health Insurance" is really more than that; it is a desire to find Other People to pay my expenses. It is a belief that Other People should be taxed so that I can live a better life.

The original purpose of insurance was to trade the effects of an unlikely or distant event for a levelized predictable payment stream today.

While there are parts of health insurance that meet this definition, much of what we call health insurace today is just the monthly payment of medical bills...with the large added overhead of administrative costs and little or no free market competition. That's why it's not working.

Good (in theory)
This sounds great, yet I shudder to think what company would insure me (a breast cancer survivor) and if there were one at what cost? I am lucky that my employer provides insurance. The cost is less than I would have to pay on the free market...

Rachel: perhaps so.
And my congrats for your survival.

However, it is not society's job to protect you as an individual from all the setbacks that may befall you.

Sorry if that sounds harsh, but there it is.

Health insurance
John,
Certainly the people who have good health insurance don't want any changes.
Those of us who work in the industry understand the cost of providing care, the great advantage of having health insurance and the threat to our healthcare system that Medicare, medicaid, and uninsured individuals pose. I agree with your point that every individual needs to have some responsibility for the cost of care in order for teh costs to be controled and the free market to keep costs low, I do believe that health insurance at a basic level should be provided to all individuals, as well as catastrophic coverage. It is my opinion that the cost of this insurance should be covered through a notional sales tax, not by an income tax or employer paid system. All of us consume goods and services. Many people work in cash business and avoid payroll taxes, many people do not own property, therefore do not pay realestate taxes. Many of the current 46 million uninsured people are also those who, when they do use the system are often sicker and more costly to care fore. The cost of their care is largely paid for by the current cost shifting to businesses and Medicare and Medicaid programs. The employers of our country and the employee who pays income taxes are the ones who pay the healthcare tab for nearly every person in the country who uses the system.
At a recent meeting of Healthcare Executives, one of my collegue stated that in our country, there is no healthcaer system. There is a highway system, roads that connect to one another, vertually throughout the country seamlessly. There is an internet system that provides seamless connections around the world. The "healthcare system" does not exsist. This country has many providers, organizations, facilities, and payors, who are not well integrated or connected for those who need healthcare to receive it. We are fragmented, divided, and floundering. The Healthcare System needs overhauling soon, before any more hospitals close, before our medical schools no longer attract the best and brightest students. I like many of your readers hate to think about the days when we retire, as who will be there to take care of us.


Okay
There are three groups of people (1) healthy living a healthy lifestyle, (2) chronically ill due to genetics or random chance and (3) chronically ill or 'high risk' due to personal choice.

Group insurance (employer provided) puts all three groups of people into one statistical lump and a fixed price is charged to the employer. A heavy manufacturer with lots of workers doing manual/risky labor will theoretically pay more per person than a bank.

As a healthy person with no chronic illnesses, it is cheaper for me to purchase an identical policy to that provided by my employer. For you, with chronic illnesses, it may be more expensive or not available at all.

I believe that those people that are healthy and those that suffer chronic illness through genetics or random chance should be considered the same in terms of pricing. Why, because the healthy people could become the chronically ill overnight (think cancer or genetic heart disease). These people should have what is traditionally thought of as insurance. That is, coverage for the "chance" that something bad will happen that require significant care/cost. In other words, catastrophic risks.

Those that choose to be overweight, smoke, drink excessively, or pursue other risky behaviours should pay more. For those people, insurance isn't really insurance, it is more a "level payment plan" like for their electric utilities. They are merely flattening their healthcare costs month-to-month. The cost to society of these people should be born solely by these people. It is a socialist notion that I should be paying for cancer treatment for the guy who smoked three packs a day for the past 30 years - he made the choice, he knew the risk, he pays the price. (As a former smoker, I think I have the right to make that statement.)

The only reform that I want is the opportunity to purchase insurance that will cover me and my family in the case of a catastrophic illness that is NOT INDUCED BY MY OWN BEHAVIOUR.

There is no such thing as free medical care. Somebody is paying for every band-aid and aspirin that is dispensed. Is it too much to ask that those who make bad choices be held accountable for their actions? Why do they deserve any health care if they cannot demonstrate the ability to pay? There are practical ways to make this work, it is just that nobody has the spine to stand up and do it.

Routine healthcare...
is not what insurance is really intended to cover. If you want to pre-pay for routine healthcare, buy a service contract. If not, pay as you go. Either is reasonable and both will require some budgeting on your part. Even having a baby can be financed. Employers can certainly offer healthcare benefits in lieu of higher salary. It should be up to the employer, not the government.

Catastrophic health insurance is another matter. Underwriters estimate the risk (financial exposure and probability) and charge premiums to cover the risk. Some risks can be reduced with a larger pool of policy holders and others cannot. It seems like Lloyds for one insures almost anything. I would think there are enough breast cancer survivors and the statistics on recurrance are well enough known that they could get a policy that covers things unrelated to breast cancer and buy an optional rider for breast cancer related coverage. With a large enough pool, it might actually come at an affordable price.

The last resort for people who are unisurable and can't afford a catastrophic loss is charity. We are already an incredibly charitable nation. If not for the government taking our money in taxes and spending it on what it thinks are the most important needs, we would be even more charitable.

Interestingly, the highway and internet examples are decidedly different in one sense. We don't know if we have too many or too few highways, because politicians decide for us what roads we will have. If they misjudge, then we over spend on roads that don't get used or we end up with too many traffic jams. But with the internet, we each pay for service. Therefore, service providers compete for our business and and we get verifiably competitive rates and continuous innovation. Which do you think is the better model?

Universal Healthcare
I have seen some comments about a system of national insurance, but no-one has yet mentioned universal healthcare such as the NHS. Healthcare is not a luxury it is a right and the quality of care should not be determined by the ability to pay.

The NHS ensures that people always recieve the highest standard of care avalible. It also allows for investment in preventative and primary medicine reducing the cost of healthcare. Also the use of such a large "consumer" base allows for the government to negotiate for resonable prices from both supliers and doctors. It also makes a career in medicine more egalitarian as the bulk of training is paid for by the NHS, as opposed to the 100k+ debts that many American doctors have to deal with making them more mercantile (this combined with the fact that there is little or no competition for doctors as they work on a universal pay scale).

It is often argued that a free market always leads to lower prices, however health care in the USA is far worse value for money than that in the UK. If no-one is out to make a profit the ineficiencies that this causes are more than cancelled out by the use of what would be the profit margin. If anything what little privitisation there has been in the NHS has been adverse, cleaning now costs 11% more than when it was part of the NHS/Civil Service yet it hospital infections have vastly increased and annecdotal evidence points to a vast deterioration in services.

Some of you may argue that this disproportionately targets the rich and middle classes but surely insurance already does this as you are paying for those who don't. This way the burden is shared according to how much of the natiional burden you can support.


Finally I am slightly perturbed by the prevailing attitude that many of these sick people are just irresponsible. People don't go to their doctor for sh1ts and giggles, and knowing that you will not have to pay for your treatment means that people will not suffer in silence for fear of the premiums or the bill, it allows problems to be detected earlier and the larger budget allows people to be treated quickly and allow them to recover more quickly rather than suffering from treatable chronic illnesses which is more damaging economically in the long run.

Healthcare is no more a right...
than food or clothing. It is a only a luxury when discretionary money is spent on un-needed healthcare. Where do you draw the line between uneeded healthcare. Its kind of like eating. If you don't have much money, you eat a lot of peanut butter and ceral and maybe an occasional hamburger helper or chicken stew. If you have more money, you eat steak and lobster whenever you want. Steak and lobster is probably a luxury. Eating is not a right. Shoes are not a right. Certainly, they may be necessary for you to go to school or work. $200 Air Jordans are certainly not a right and could easily be considered a luxury.

The point is, in a free market, the consumers dictate what they are willing to pay for healthcare, clothing, shelter, food, and the other necessities of life. Nobody owes anybody anything. You have to earn it yourself or rely on the charity of others. If you are able to earn more than a minimum level, you can make choices about how much of the basics and how much of the luxuries you will be willing to pay for. You will also be able to decide if you will give to charity and which charities and how much and under what terms. The way you generally earn a living is to provide for others what they want. The division of labor and specialization and automation have made us each incredibly productive on average and we are able to enjoy the fruits of our labors. National healthcare and other socialist schemes are just the road backwards.

A Right?
Voice of Europe, can you tell me specifically where in the constitution it states that healthcare is a right? I've been looking real hard and I just can't seem to locate it anywhere. BTW, that is the U.S. Constitution -- the only legal and binding document establishing our rights in the good ole U.S. of A. Where does it state that one individual has the right to use the goods and/or services of another individual or business for absolutely nothing. If you can find this stealth right in the constitution then I'm cancelling my health insurance pronto and suing my doctor the next time he presents me with a bill for his services.

If you think that healthcare is expensive now, wait until it is "free".

Feefwd: Absolutely right
Further, VoxEurope's plan would do to this country exactly what it's done to Europe: bankrupt us.

No WAY in HADES do I want the U.S. to turn into anything that even remotely resembles Europe.

*shudder*


Voice of Deception
You say it is a right.
You do realize that you are saying : I have a RIGHT to the labors and property of healthcare providers.

This is no different from 'to each according to his needs'.

This myth of superior healthcare is just that-a myth.

How many new lifesaving drugs come out of Europe,France and Canada?
Why does it take 18 weeks for an MRI in Canada, and 6 months for heart surgery? I can get an MRI Today if I want to.
What is the true cost after taking into account increased taxes of Europe? I think your 4$ per liter of gasoline doesn't factor into your 'estimate'.
What is the liability of malpractice when it is government controlled? ZERO. You are SOL!
Why is the rate of resistant bacteria in European hospitals more prevalent than in the US? Perhaps to lower staffing levels due to increased demand?(You know for that 'free' stuff).

I eagerly await your next set of propaganda.

Exactly- Health Insurance is Socialism
I wrote a blog yesterday which pretty much agrees point for point with Stossel's article today, and the long and the short of it is that the Liberal establishment has scared us into believing we cannot live without one of the last bastions of Socialism in this country, Health Insurance. This is a fallacy,and worse, since it has the potential to bankrupt us as Socialism destroyed the Soviet Union.

Insurance is very expensive to employers
Employers could pay much higher wages if the employee paid 100% of their premiums. Our insurance costs our company nearly $1000/month for an employee and family. Even if they family is only 1 spouse, and 1 child. It is no cheaper for chronically healthy people like me who never go to the Dr. I would gladly pay employees more and not have to deal with it.

negotiated discounts - cost shifting
Joy wrote that large firms can negotiate large discounts and get better insurance rates than single payers like you and me. This is a fallacy. In fact, it's just another form of cost-shifting. I pay a higher premium than do you - saving you money. Why doesn't this happen with homeowners insurance? Because we each pay for our own insurance, not our employer. Plus, I get better service - if I don't like the way my homeowner insurance company treats me, it's adios baby.

With all that said, and even if we each managed our own policy, we would still need something for the truly very-sick - the high-risk cases that any insurance company would naturally prefer to avoid for sound business reasons. These people, and those with pre-existing conditions, would not have the luxury of switching companies when they want to. Some sort of true fallback for these people would still be helpful and desireable in my opinion.

socialized health care
Bronco's owner Pat Bowlen (Canadian socialist) seeks health care in the USA. If socialized medicine was as good as the libs claim, Bowlen would not cross the border for health services.

BrianR made reference to the days when Drs made house calls & mothers handed the Dr a check. In those days, mothers handled more health issues than do today's mothers, hence health care costs for children is higher today. (Also, I could purchase 1,000 meds for under $30.00. Today, the same quantity of the same product costs me a minimum of $285 thanks to lawyers, taxes & government forcing the mfr to recoop the costs of research for AIDs meds through the sale of drugs developed 50 years ago vs. the sale of the AIDs drugs.)

VofE writes: "Finally I am slightly perturbed by the prevailing attitude that many of these sick people are just irresponsible."

WHY? Do you not believe that "health maintenance" is a responsibility? Actually your attitude is understandable as socailism promotes irresponsibility.

Insurance
I don't think government should force businesses to provide insurance for employees. Nor do I think government should provide insurance for poor people or for rich Senators or Representatives. Government should not be involved in the daily lives of people. It is likely too late but we seriously need to shrink our government down to a tiny fraction of the size it is now.

Thank you Mr. Stossell for your courageous work.

True experience
When my wife gave birth to our daughter, we were covered by a company plan.

The amount we were to pay out of pocket arrived from the various providers. When I called to set up a payment plan, the hospital billing department offered me a 40% discount to pay the balance in full. I said sure. Then I called the anesthesioligists office and asked them if they offered a discount for paying the bill in full. Sure, 25%. No problem.

Now I am self-employed. When we spoke to an agent about health insurance, she recommended against buying the pregnancy rider. First, we had to pay premiums for 18 months before the benefit would kick in, then it would be 80/20 with a deductible to be paid first.

She said that she did not carry the coverage herself. Saved money, and when she became pregnant, paid in cash at the hospital receiving a big discount for doing so.

She said in the long run it saved money to do it that way.

Healthcare is a right
It may not be a legal right in America, I veiw it more as an intrinsic right. It is the duty of society where possible to look after the weak. As a society both Europe and America are able to easily provide healthcare to all, much in the same way education is seen as an intrinsic right. Both seek to enhance the quality of life and to deny them on basis of ability to pay is the same as to say that people do not have an equal right to life.

Feedfwd: You draw a poor analogy here, yes you can choose between lobster and bread, or designer lables and Wal-Mart value range, however when was the last time you got to choose between say Downs Syndrome and a runny nose. Although having said that clothing and food are almost rights here, there is zero taxation on food and clothing and specific benefits to those living below the poverty line. Incidentaly what is necesarry is determined by the National Institute for Clinical Excellance which determines whether the benifits of the treatment are worth the risks and the costs, so heart surgery is ok but plastic surgery (physical enhancment not major defects or trauma cases) is not.

David M: On the issue of drugs, Europe is home to Roche, Glaxo-Smithklein, Bayer, Sanofi-Aventis, Novartis and Astra-Zenca, 6 of the top 10 pharmaceutical companies in the world (all incidentaly in countries with very generous healt programmes). Naturally the side effect of saying that you will treat more people is that more people will ask for treatment, meaning that you may have to wait longer for non-emergency treatments. However the waiting lists are not that bad and rarely life-threatening, as opposed to the American system of treat the rich and f*** the poor. On the matter of cost, health care actually takes up a smaller percentage of the UK gdp than that of the USA (http://service.spiegel.de/digas/servlet/jahrbuch?L=USA#soz) so the manner of taxation doesn't really matter. Finally my point about cleaning was that it had become much less eficient under private business and that the state is better when it comes to providing these services as there is no temptation to cut corners. I hope this satisfies your yearning.

Anti-Socialist: Actually a state funded encourages healthy living as you are more likely to see your primary care provider who can help you, saving both you and the state a whole load of trouble. It also allows for a coherent health strategy, why spend $10 on the cure when you can spend $1 on prevention. Also your point completely ignores things such as accidents, genetic diseases and viruses which you can do nothing to prevent, there needs to be a safety net to catch those who are unlucky enough to suffer these things.

STILL don't get it!
Mr. Stossel, Thanks for trying.
I've read a number of these posts. It appears that many otherwise sensible people still think that someone else pays for their treatment when they have health insurance, and that it cost them less.

You wrote,
"Anyway, insurance is a terrible way to pay for things. It's expensive and wasteful. Some years ago, an insurance CEO said that it costs $35-$50 to process a $25 claim."

Who paid $60 to $75 for my $25 treatment?

Did it really come out of MY pocket?

Voice of Europe............
You say, 'there needs to be a safety net to catch those who are unlucky enough to suffer these things.'

I would call the safety net a good opportunity for charity. Keep the government out of it. They complicate rather than simplify.

Deacon
The state forms a far more secure system of welfare, it attempts to give equal access to care across the nation and it can guarantee a source of income. Charity is good for helping individuals in specific situations, however human nature is not kind enough to ensure that charities will ever be able to replace a body with power and a massive cash stream. You are right that government can often be complex, but that is because they have to serve the needs of millions of people in differing circumstances.

Hey VoE, is housing a right too?
Voice of Europe:
If healthcare is a right, even for mild problems, then is housing a right too? After all, inadequate housing can and does lead to all sorts of medical problems.
And then it seems only logical that the gov't should be involved in providing housing. And wouldn't it be cheaper then for the gov't to control *all* housing? As you stated above, you believe competition causes problems and costs money, so why have competition for housing?
Insteadh, do you want the gov't determing what type of house each person should have? Assigning everyone a house? Seems like it could be a more efficient system, with no space wasted in any house.

health care & insurance

For years I've said the real cure to rising health care costs is to run health insurance like car insurance.

You don't have your car insurance pay for fixing a flat tire or replacing windshield wipers or a tune-up; it pays for major damage.

The same should apply for health insurance. It pays if you suddenly have to have your appendix removed. It doesn't pay for a pulled muscle in your back, flu shots or little Suzy's scrapped knee. You pay for that out of your own pocket.


more myths
My wifes Uncle(63 yrs) just passed away in a Hospital in Finland which has UHC. He went in for pneumonia. He was quite weak and didn't have much help in the hospital and fell going to the bathroom. He broke his hip and needed surgery. The doctors pumped him full of antibiotics and then performed surgery. He had hepatitus in the late 80s and the anitbotics weakened his liver. He was dead 2 weeks later. Compensation? Nope can't sue government.

I'm sure its 'not that bad'.

If the poor get such bad healthcare here, why is the number one problem of the poor is obesity? No one is denied lifesaving care here. Wish all you want, it still isn't so.

Like others have posted, if it is so good then why are Canadians coming to the US for major operations? Why are over half of new doctors in Britain foreign born?


biotech companies
May be located in EU, but they are funded primarily in the US.

This is from that right wing Harvard Business School:

http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/3817.html

"At the start of the 1990s, the U.S. and European drug makers each controlled about a third of the worldwide drug market. But today, the U.S. share has climbed to about 50 percent while the European slice has dwindled to 21 percent. What's more, many drug makers in Europe have moved their R&D facilities to the U.S., where they make most of their income."

Once more
Wolfie: Personally I believe that housing is a right, as does my government. Currently 20% of the UK population lives in government housing schemes at reduced or no rent (this is means tested). However the point you were trying to make does not apply in this situation, there is a genuine choice in housing which does not exist in medicine, you know what type of house you want and how much you are willing to pay for it, but do you know the ins and outs of every medical procedure and what a good price for every medicine is? Personally as long as I leave a hospital in a better state than I came in, I'm happy.

DavidM: I'm sorry to hear about your uncle-in-law, however this is not they system it was poor doctors, they exist everywhere. If anything UHC may help in similar situations as the doctors will not feel constrained by the cost of procedures or which insurance company they belong to. As to the lack of right to sue, I don't know about the Finnish legal system, however in the UK a corronors court is convened which determines if the death was due to neglegance and if it is then the family is free to sue the NHS. It is not the medical system but the legal system which determines the strength of the claim. It may be that there is a less litigeous culture in Europe.

Forgot to add
DavidM: Sorry I finished my comment and forgot about the rest of your post. The reason that RICH Canadians come over for medical treatment is because your system is squewed towards the rich, it is a system where what you can pay determines what you get, so naturally the rich prefer a discriminatory health system to a one-size-fits-all system. On the matter of foreign doctors, the NHS is currently trying to compensate for decades of underinvestment under Margret "lets take a dump on the British people" Thatcher, so they are increasing the replacement rate. It is also because the UK provides English speaking western universities which are considerably cheaper that US universities especially when preferable rates are taken into account for members of the Commonwealth.

Finally on the matter of biotech companies, surely the type of system makes little difference to the demand for the drugs, I imagine that the biggest threat to the pharmaceutical industry is the competition from generics.

UHC
First of all, Voice of Europe, health care is a service, not a right. Rights don't impose burdens upon others; they don't cost money. In a positive rights scheme, which you seemingly advocate, the rights of A can only be satisfied by restricting the freedom of B, that is, by stealing from him. You may find this perfectly sound. I do not. I'm not too fond of thieves, be they individuals or governments. And from whom, prae tell, will B steal?

Now, what if B doesn't agree to this? Under your ideal system, he has no choice. He is not free to refuse the demands of his fellow citizens. Society has a claim to his property, which he must fork over at gunpoint. Yes, literally, at gunpoint. See what would happen to him if he refused to pay his taxes.

So your ideal society is one that relies on the massive use of implied violence to satisfy the needs of some sector of society, at the expense of another. And yet I'm sure you consider yourself quite liberal. Your motto for government must surely be, 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs'. In your scheme, it is actually a crime for B not to hand over his property to A. A strange world indeed. God bless you!!

The Canadian Supreme Court has ruled that its national health care system actually kills people. Under your beloved English system, I understand that dental care is so poor and the waiting times are so long that there is a thriving market for do-it-yourself fillings. People can't take the waiting so they are just winging it themselves, at great discomfort, no doubt.

Hmmm.....maybe the failings of socialized medicine will ironically end up producing a self-reliant citizenry that will learn to take care of itself. Just a thought....

VOICE OF EUROPE
If you like Socialism so much why don't you move to Europe or Canada.

Government doesn't work like you would like it to work. Sorry son.

Federalist
Your argument about positive and negative rights argument is valid however it is the same system that we use to justify the funding of the police or military, some of us may be lucky enough not to need them however we accept that we may need them for our personal protection. The system of UHC works on the same principle of universal access. You argue against the idea of a nation state based on taxation, rather than specifically UHC.

On the issue of dentistry this is due to the mixture of private and public. The public sector cannot compete with the private sector which leads to those who cannot afford to pay for dentistry being left behind.

Deacon
Already there, already there. Social democracies with a welfare state may not be perfect but they are better than any other social model, in my opinion.

Voice of Europe
Voice of Europe: Protection of the population from invasion is one of the primary responsibilites of government. The courts, military, and the police are all necessary functions that cannot be privatized in capitalist economy. They are necessary for the society to function.

Health care, housing, food etc. are available in a capitalist economy from many providers. The profit motive ensures innovation and competition.

One couldn't run a profitable police department without a conflict of interest. One can certainly run a hospital for profit without a conflict of interest. Therein lies the difference.

Voice of Europe
I understand your rationale for UHC and all sorts of taxpayer-provided services. I disagree with it, however, and rather strongly at that. You write in your last entry that, "Social democracies with a welfare state may not be perfect but they are better than any other social model, IN MY OPINION" (emphasis mine). That's just it. IN YOUR OPINION. In my opinion, it isn't.

The difference is, if I win out, no burdens are imposed on anyone who doesn't wish to take them on. I aggress against no one. You may object to that and some people may not receive optimal medical care, which is indeed unfortunate. But government has not been allowed to encroach into illegitimate territory. And government is in essence the negation of liberty.

You are free to contribute as much as you'd like to assist those in need, as would any business or corporation. In fact, social pressures would force corporations to provide great charitable contributions.

If your ideas win out, however, then great burdens are imposed on people who have no choice in the matter, who must obey or face the wrath of the state. Coercion dominates, and the people are forced to surrender a great deal of their liberty. You're essentially using force to compel some people to provide for some others' care. Society begins to feed on itself. Legal plunder becomes the norm. In MY opinion, that is profoundly unjust.

It is true that taxes are imposed to maintain national defenses and police forces. These however, are properly instituted to defend life, liberty and property from insult. They therefore have NEGATIVE roles. Governments are legitimate inasmuch as they perform that negative role.

When they stray beyond that function to begin providing positive rights, then a slippery slope is indeed created. Such a system will end in tyranny if history is any indication. And a page of history is worth a volume of logic.

So Far Removed
VOE, In defense of your beloved socialism you have also inadvertently exposed one of its greatest weaknesses. "...the NHS is currently trying to compensate for decades of underinvestment under Margret "lets take a dump on the British people" Thatcher". So in other words, the entire healthcare system and all of it's myriad decisions large and small (such as how many doctors a country needs) is in the hands of one politician who must somehow determine an unknowable number such as the number of doctors that a country could possibly need. Should Maggie Thatcher also have made the decision for how many tongue depressers each examination room should store in the clear plastic case? Perhaps she is the one most qualified to make the determination for proper nutrition and height and weight ratios -- all while planning for the Falkland War.

That's the problem with socialism -- the intimate decisions of the minutae of life are made far from the action where it is happening by a bunch of untrained politicians and bureacrats subject to the whims of politics, influence, and corruption. And yet people the world over continue to want to hand more and more of the details of life over to politicians and bureacrats far removed from the action and incapable of knowing the details that can best serve each of us individually. VOE, whatever the inefficiencies of capitalism that you lament, it pales in comparison to the inefficiencies of socialism that so arrogantly insists it can possibly know and cater to all of the needs of everyday life with one size fits all policies and plans.

However flawed our current healthcare system, at least the number of doctors is determined by the invisible hand of capitalism with individuals responding to the supply, demand, needs, and incentives of a free market that fairly values their skills and abilities rather than one man sitting in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue arbitrarily assigning a "correct" number.

One dilemma after another
I retired from my job in 1999. I had our health insurance because my husband was self-employed and it was cheaper that way. My pension is $803 per month. The company pays some of my health insurance, but not all. Another few months and they would have paid it all, but I had no choice. I left due to downsizing.

At first I was getting over $400 of my pension check after taxes and health insurance were taken out. This year I received $98 and next year it will be $46. My husband and I are rarely sick and spend little at the doctor. Aside from having two children, foot surgery and a hysterectomy and my son having a broken arm and leg over the past almost 30 years, we have made no claims against our insurance. If we had back what we paid in, we'd have made money. Somewhat like the Social Security thievery.

At present I have kept my son on our health insurance in order for him to be insured at all. He will be 25 next fall and will then be off by attrition and I can go to employee and spouse rather than family.

At present I am checking with my insurance agent to get prices on purchasing health insurance myself. Major medical only. Unless something changes, I see a future where healthcare will only be available to the wealthy. Getting the government involved in forcing employers to offer health insurance only guarantees it.

Before Lawyers & Government...
My aunt recently showed us a hospital receipt from 1953 for the 4 days she spent in the hospital giving birth to my younger cousin. Total cost = $100 (another examply of how economical health care was before the government & lawyers messed up the health care system).

VoxEurope: BS
UHC is not a right here in the US. I don't see one word about it in the Constitution. That is the only argument that matters.

Everything else is BS.

Let’s Review,
VOE wrote:
"It is often argued that a free market always leads to lower prices, however health care in the USA is far worse value for money than that in the UK."

"Personally I believe that housing is a right, as does my government. Currently 20% of the UK population lives in government housing schemes at reduced or no rent (this is means tested)."

"…there is a genuine choice in housing which does not exist in medicine, you know what type of house you want and how much you are willing to pay for it, but do you know the ins and outs of every medical procedure and what a good price for every medicine is?"

Silicon Doc Wrote:
"Car insurance is not mandatory. Financial responsibility is."

Question: Is financial responsibility a right, a responsibility, a government mandated obligation or merely a social construct?

More review,

VOE wrote:
"On the issue of dentistry this is due to the mixture of private and public. The public sector cannot compete with the private sector which leads to those who cannot afford to pay for dentistry being left behind."

"One couldn't run a profitable police department without a conflict of interest. One can certainly run a hospital for profit without a conflict of interest. Therein lies the difference."

federalist wrote:
"The Canadian Supreme Court has ruled that its national health care system actually kills people."

Question: Who arbitrates which conflict is of the higher inertest to society?

Answer to both: The State, which can elevate freedom to a worthy endeavor, or debase human existence by assigning cost over value for protected classes.

I disagree federalist: “Rights don't impose burdens on others.” Quite the opposite, Rights explicitly obligate an acknowledgment of another’s rights. You may not want health insurance. So be it. You can also choose to associate with whomever you want to gain an advantage against the odds of medical misfortune. I reserve the right to disassociate myself with group affliction, choosing to assert my personal preference for a healthy life style and pay to offset probability with protection against a catastrophic event. The choice is my right. You are obliged to acknowledge.

VOE: “a mix of public and private” is apostasy by both. Public intervention always asserts overwhelming pressure on prices, upward.

Yep
"Companies only provide it because of a World War II-era tax break that never went away."

Totally true. They basically save almost 8 percent of the benefit because it's not part of the payroll taxes.

Whoa!
Who knew that Europe had dentistry?

Who knew?
Europenan Dentistry? Value is in the hands of the holder!

Too Many Drugs???
I wish they would do a study of what effect the drugs they give children lead to when they become adults. Judging from the adults we have in society today, that can't seem to make adult choices and decisions, I wonder if all the drugs like riduline and others they give kids for A.D.D. and other conditions they claim they have effect their minds and jugdements. If the medical industry used drugs properly for the right medical problems, which they don't even look for today. Drugs are ordered to prevent kids from being kids. What a waste of medicine and medical professionals. What a waste of our children the future and health of people in general. More $$$'s are spent on unnessecary procedures today than ever. Adults run to doctors and phyciarist and all other medical people, as if they can give them the magic pill or procedure to simply be a human. Emotions and health are compromised. It is truely a soceity gone insane. I say trust in the lord for you may find the ones you look too are not nesseceraly eqquiped to heal.

Wal Mart in Maryland
I am a businessman in Maryland. In truth the Wal Mart bill was concocted by the demoncrats in conjunction with Giant Food. Wal Mart got into the grocery business and as a result Giant started losing. The law in question required all employers that had over 10,000 employees to put a certain amount of money into health care or pay a penalty to the state. Giant would have been able to stifle Wal Mart and the state would get funds, if the penalty was paid, from the feds dollar for dollar. Also, Wal Mart was the only employer that would have been effected by this law. In conjunction this there was also a law being proffered that us small guys called the mini-Wal Mart bill that would have put a good number of small guys out of business. On the airways now the dems, periodically with their election spasm, bring up that Wal Mart does not give benefits to any employees. I know a young I guy that was just hired and he has benefits. There will be rants for National Health Care if the dems take over. They will jibe people into believing it is free. As one writer on this thread put it the free care in Germany costs $400 a month.

The American experience began...
with socialism practised in both the Plymouth colony (think Thanksgiving Pilgrims) and Jamestown. Unfortunately, history is taught poorly these days if at all, but the common result was a practical move from welfare state to self-reliant liberty. Of course, back then, Christianity was the basis for colonial morality and it served us well. With some exceptions, people were quite charitable and as it turns out quite productive. America is still by far one of if not the most productive andncharitable countries in the world. But we are in danger of losing that mantle as godless liberals try to spread their secular socialism.

What Cave or Castle do You Life In?
I could tell you first hand what it is like to get insurance when you have had a life long, genetically
induced, medical problem, but that would be far too obvious for this argument.

Let's go to some of your other arguments. Like, "people
think it's something for nothing". My answer, only those
with an IQ under 30, and oops, all the liberals. We
wouldn't want to leave them out.

I have yet to meet a person in the last 20 years that has
insurance that covers everything. Insurance covers less
and less each time my husband goes out to buy insurance
for his company. At one time, 25 years ago he picked up
the entire insurance load for his employees and their
families. Then, later the employees had to pay for their
families, and now the employees pay for half of their own insurance too. I think this is typical. The employees pay at least part of their insurance costs and then get hit again when they actually become users.

Please raise your hand if your employee pays every bit
of your insurance. Please raise your hand if your
insurance package pays for everything that you need
medically (forget everything you want). Please raise
your hand if you have never been told that your policy is
20/80 but then you find out that, well, the 80% means
80% of reasonable cost and yours wasn't reasonable, and
please raise your if you have never been told that the insurance just simply doesn't cover what your doctor says you need at all. FREE MEANS YOU HAVE NEVER USED THE SYSTEM OR YOU HAVE NEVER PAID YOUR BILLS. All the rest of us, covered or not, pay and sometimes through the nose.

Wal-Mart - for what it is worth. You are probably right
that the people would have been paid less. I doubt
that it would have been a trade off, one in the employee's favor. After all, somebody has got to buy either the insurance or pay the medical bills and any ignoramus knows that group insurance costs less than
individual insurance. Could one dare suggest that maybe
one of the world's richest companies take a little
less profit? Not on a Republican website, to be sure.
What Wal-Mart is doing (like Mr. Ford) is creating a
work force that can buy its product, except that in the
case of Wal-Mart you would have to add that many of the
employees can ONLY buy at Wal-Mart because they can't
afford anything else.

"Do I Really Need that." I am old enough to remember
when no one questioned their doctor. If he said you
needed it, you needed it. Now many ask and not
just because of the financial cost (we know what makes
insurance costs go up - duh - except those darn old
liberals) but sometimes because of the pain factor,
because of the time factor, because we can't believe
something is really seriously wrong with us or we are
scared to find out what is wrong with us.

"We routinely ask for insurance with low or no deductibles." Who is asking? Who is getting? Again,
get out of your cave or your castle.

We demand insurance that covers everything from pets to
dental work. Who is demanding? Who is getting? It is
true that people in very large corporations or educational institutions get dental insurance. Dental
insurance that pays for everything, I believe is non-
existant. My dentist, who is also a friend, says about
35% of his patients has insurance. Not exactly the
universe yet. And we live in a university town that is
small. So probably most of that 35% are employees of
the university.

Your final solution: "Health Savings Accounts with
high-deductible catastrophic insurance. That's a good
thing." That's an upper middle class thing. For the
rest of the population it is an employee-paid insurance
plan or nothing at all. Ask 40 million+ people who
are currently uninsured.

I am headed off to Kenya on a safari in a couple of
days. My ballot has already been cast. Too bad
Hillary, my hero, wasn't on it. But I'll have that
opportunity next time. I just did a quick check. Even
Kenya with its limited resources has nationalized
medicine. They decided that health care was too important to make available to only those with lotza
money. Of course, they will go bankrupt as will all
of Europe and beyond. And only we will be sitting here
with all of our money, with the largest spread between
rich and poor in the industralized world, feeling very smug and "free" and looking for the next war to fight.

P.S. I have thumbed through your book that has the
word "Lies" in it and I thought it might be worth a
closer look when I have the time. However, if insurance
is one of those lies you talk about, I do believe I
will skip it.







What Cave or Castle do You Live In?
I can speak personally about the difficulty
of getting individual insurance when you have a life-
long medical problem, genetically induced, but that is
too obvious to bother about in this argument.

Let's go to some of your other arguments. Like, "people
think it's something for nothing". My answer, only those with an IQ under 30, and oops, all the liberals. We wouldn't want to leave them out.

I have yet to meet a person in the last 20 years that has insurance that covers everything. Insurance covers less and less each time my husband goes out to buy insurance
for his company. At one time, 25 years ago he picked up the entire insurance load for his employees and their families. Then, later the employees had to pay for their
families, and now the employees pay for half of their own insurance too. I think this is typical. The employees pay at least part of their insurance costs and then get hit again when they actually become users.

Please raise your hand if your employee pays every bit of your insurance. Please raise your hand if your insurance package pays for everything that you need
medically (forget everything you want). Please raise your hand if you have never been told that your policy is 20/80 but then you find out that, well, the 80% means 80% of reasonable cost and yours wasn't reasonable, and please raise your if you have never been told that the insurance just simply doesn't cover what your doctor says you need at all. FREE MEANS YOU HAVE NEVER USED THE SYSTEM OR YOU HAVE NEVER PAID YOUR BILLS. All the rest of us, covered or not, pay and sometimes through the nose.

Wal-Mart - for what it is worth. You are probably right that the people would have been paid less. I doubt that it would have been a trade off, one in the employee's favor. After all, somebody has got to buy either the insurance or pay the medical bills and any ignoramus knows that group insurance costs less than individual insurance. Could one dare suggest that maybe one of the world's richest companies take a little less profit? Not on a Republican website, to be sure. What Wal-Mart is doing (like Mr. Ford) is creating a work force that can buy its product, except that in the case of Wal-Mart you would have to add that many of the employees can ONLY buy at Wal-Mart because they can't afford anything else.

"Do I Really Need that." I am old enough to remember when no one questioned their doctor. If he said you needed it, you needed it. Now many ask and not just because of the financial cost (we know what makes insurance costs go up - duh - except those darn old liberals) but sometimes because of the pain factor, because of the time factor, because we can't believe something is really seriously wrong with us or we are scared to find out what is wrong with us. In other words, that question is asked often.

"We routinely ask for insurance with low or no deductibles." Who is asking? Who is getting? Again, get out of your cave or your castle.

We demand insurance that covers everything from pets to
dental work. Who is demanding? Who is getting? It is true that people in very large corporations or educational institutions get dental insurance. Dental insurance that pays for everything, I believe is non-existant. My dentist, who is also a friend, says about
35% of his patients has insurance. Not exactly the universe yet. And we live in a university town that is small. So probably most of that 35% are employees of the university.

Your final solution: "Health Savings Accounts with high-deductible catastrophic insurance. That's a good thing." That's an upper middle class thing. For the rest of the population it is an employee-paid insurance plan or nothing at all. Ask 40 million+ people who
are currently uninsured.

I am headed off to Kenya on a safari in a couple of days. My ballot has already been cast. Too bad Hillary, my hero, wasn't on it. But I'll have that opportunity next time. I just did a quick check. Even Kenya with its limited resources has nationalized medicine. They decided that health care was too important to make available to only those with lotza money. Of course, they will go bankrupt as will all of Europe and beyond. And only we will be sitting here with all of our money, with the largest spread between rich and poor in the industralized world, feeling very smug and "free" and looking for the next war to fight.

P.S. I have thumbed through your book that has the word "Lies" in it and I thought it might be worth a closer look when I have the time. However, if insurance is one of those lies you talk about, I do believe I will skip it.












Sorry about the Repeat
This website is one of the most irritating I have ever
worked with. I have noticed that I am not the only person
who has experienced the problem of repeat performance. I
see it every once in awhile.

Maybe if they gave the webmaster some insurance, he/she
would do a better job. You do often get what you pay for.

National health care
National health care a k a socialized medicine would be a huge mistake if passed. Those who support it say nothing about having to wait two years or more for any elective surgery, ignoring the fact that getting it early -- before it becomes an emergency matter -- is better and, in the long run, cheaper because the patient recovers sooner. Both of my hips have been replaced but if we had been subject to socialized medicine I would be in a wheelchair now.

Anybody who has served in the military and become ill will know how socialized medicine really works; you will be treated until you are well enough to work. You may still be a tad sick but you can still work. The cure is of secondary importance. One exception: if you are in a flight crew and have an ear infection you won't fly until it is cured.

Socialized medicine:

The compassion of the IRS
The efficiency of the Post Office
At Pentagon prices.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.