Pre-existing Conditions and Inability to Get Insurance

This is one thing that really annoys me, when people complain that they have a pre-existing condition and that they can’t get health insurance. Well no kidding.

Let’s run through how insurance works. Insurance basically protects people against the “bad state” should it occur. Ideally it works by offering people a menu of plans to choose from that have various levels of coverage, premiums, and deductibles. People then self-select by picking one plan. A given plan is designed so that the premiums from all the people under that plan pay for the expected costs of the “bad state”. The deductibles/premiums are set up to try and get people to self-select correctly. For example, a healthy young person might prefer a high deductible/low premium plan vs. a low deductible/high premium plan. Now, should the “bad state” occur, you receive the payment (have services paid for up to the agreed maximum) under the plan you picked.

Now, if you have a pre-existing condition that messes everything up right at the point where the premiums are designed to cover the expected costs. The term “expected cost” isn’t just something used in insurance literature to make people sound both erudite and boring, it also means you multiply the probability of getting sick times the number of people times the cost of getting sick. For insurance to work, the probability can’t be too high. For people with a pre-existing condition the probability is at its maximum possible value, one or unity. For these people it isn’t a question of if they get sick, they are sick and they will consume health care resources with certainty.

The reason this is a problem is that, unless there is a government mandate forcing pooling, the only people who will be under the “pre-existing condition plans” will be people with pre-existing conditions and the premiums will equal the costs of treatment. In short, people with pre-existing conditions cannot get insurance save when pooled with other people.

But when you pool people with pre-existing conditions with those who are healthy, you are basically providing a transfer of income form those who are healthy to those who have pre-existing conditions. So please, call it what it is. You want to give people with pre-existing conditions other people’s money so they can get treatment. Calling insurance is simply a lie.

FILED UNDER: Economics and Business, Health
Steve Verdon
About Steve Verdon
Steve has a B.A. in Economics from the University of California, Los Angeles and attended graduate school at The George Washington University, leaving school shortly before staring work on his dissertation when his first child was born. He works in the energy industry and prior to that worked at the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the Division of Price Index and Number Research. He joined the staff at OTB in November 2004.

Comments

  1. Triumph says:

    How do you reconcile this critique with your support for McCain’s lame tax credit scheme to “fix” the problem of access to health insurance?

  2. Michael says:

    Here’s the problem Steve, “sick” is nebulous. According to the insurance companies, my son is “sick” because he is on the Autism spectrum. The thing is, that doesn’t mean he’s any more likely to get diabetes, cancer or the flu than any other kid his age and demographic. However, I can’t get any private health insurance company to cover him for anything, because he is “sick”.

    To date, his little sister has had more ear infections, has gotten stitches, inexplicable rashes, etc. If you remove the purely autism-related costs, she’s has more costly medical care than my son has. But I can’t get any private insurer to cover my son, even with a rider on autism-related costs, because he falls into that nebulous “sick” category, while my non-ASD daughter they’ll cover just fine.

  3. od says:

    That’s always been one of the arguments for government medical benefits … they kick in when you’re born, so except for the small percentage of the population born with a birth defect, there are no pre-existing conditions.

    There are, of course, other problems with government medical programs. Interestingly enough, I’ve been told that when the gov’t of Saskatchewan introduced gov’t healthcare (they were the first gov’t in Canada to do so), they didn’t cover all conditions (for instance, pharmaceuticals weren’t covered). A lot of Canadians think that the original program made a lot of sense – the point was to try to offset the costs of accidents and disease, rather than trying to keep everyone alive as long as possible (which is what’s eating up most of the medicare cost in Canada today).

  4. Grewgills says:

    What do you propose happen to people with preexisting conditions or people who are dropped from private insurance because of an expensive to treat condition?
    Private health insurance without mandates will not take care of them and only the fantastically wealthy can take care of it themselves.

  5. Gordon says:

    I don’t like the idea that someone with a pre-existing condition can be turned down for health care. It’s abominable. However, I have no problem with them being charged more based on their individual medical problem. It’s a sad fact of life that someone with a pre-existing condition has to pay more, but it shouldn’t mean they are exiled from private insurance entirely.

  6. Alas, the conflation of health care with health insurance will never end.

  7. Bithead says:

    But when you pool people with pre-existing conditions with those who are healthy, you are basically providing a transfer of income form those who are healthy to those who have pre-existing conditions. So please, call it what it is. You want to give people with pre-existing conditions other people’s money so they can get treatment. Calling insurance is simply a lie.

    Exactly the point I’ve been making in another thread. I hope you brought your cup. Reality doesn’t mesh well with some.

  8. rodney dill says:

    I don’t like the idea that someone with a pre-existing condition can be turned down for health care. It’s abominable.

    Do you think someone who has had a car accident should be able to buy car insurance to cover the damage after the fact?

  9. William d'Inger says:

    This can be more complicated than you imagine. My insurance company attempted terminate the plan I was in and gave me the option of an almost identical plan for only a small increase in premiums. The catch-22 was the pre-existing conditions clause. Nevermind the fact that I had been with them over a decade, this was considered new insurance. Basically, for a 5% increase in cost, I lost virtually all my coverage for a year. The whole story is way too complicated to discuss here, but I generally consider insurance to be government tolerated criminal activity.

  10. Michael says:

    Alas, the conflation of health care with health insurance will never end.

    You can’t afford one without the other, so why not conflate the two?

    Do you think someone who has had a car accident should be able to buy car insurance to cover the damage after the fact?

    No, but they certainly aught to be able to buy insurance to cover any future accidents, shouldn’t they? We aught to let them buy home-owners insurance too, shouldn’t we? Imagine being declined for home-owner’s insurance because you were once involved in a car accident.

  11. rodney dill says:

    No, but they certainly aught to be able to buy insurance to cover any future accidents, shouldn’t they? We aught to let them buy home-owners insurance too, shouldn’t we? Imagine being declined for home-owner’s insurance because you were once involved in a car accident.

    Since this post is concerning pre-existing conditions that would be past accidents, not future accidents. Having a predisposition to accidents (auto) can also lead to higher premiums. Increased healthcare premiums would be inline with what happens with home or auto insurance if you start making claims. I don’t agree that health providers should be able to totally disallow coverage for previous illness.

    From what I’ve checked so for, the laws vary widely state to state, In Michigan if you have coverage and switch to another carrier they have to credit you as covered for pre-existing conditions, unless you ‘ve been uncovered a significant length of time (like 18 months).

  12. Derrick says:

    This is one thing that really annoys me, when people complain that they have a pre-existing condition and that they can’t get health insurance. Well no kidding.

    Steve,

    I’m so sorry that people who by luck of the draw get sick and by circumstance, sometimes good and sometimes bad, don’t have insurance and want medical care is so annoying to you. My best friend’s girlfriend was out of grad school for 2 months and found out that she had MS. She couldn’t take the job, actually had the forethought to get temporary insurance while she was waiting for employment but after 6 months plus an extension b/c of her hospital stay was then just out of luck. She was saddled with expensive hospital stays, $2000/month medicine and was willing to pay a huge premium but I guess because she was looking for “a transfer of wealth” got what she deserved living in a no-pooling state like GA. I’m glad that the issue is so simple for you to get on your soapbox.

  13. Michael says:

    Since this post is concerning pre-existing conditions that would be past accidents, not future accidents. Having a predisposition to accidents (auto) can also lead to higher premiums.

    Ok, admittedly auto-insurance is not a good analog of health insurance. There is no automotive equivalent to cancer after all, and you always have the option of replacing the entire car. The best I could come up with is having a slow oil-leak making your car ineligible for collision insurance, and even that analogy sucks.

    I still think that the best solution is to try to make health insurance unnecessary for anything except major medical needs (similar to what auto and home insurance covers). That way even if you have diabetes, you can still afford to see your doctor about that cough you’ve got. Making routine health care unaffordable will only increase the occurrence of major medical needs as things go untreated. If you can prevent a major respiratory infection before it lands you in the hospital, it will cost you less, reduce demand on the Hospital, and keep your insurance pool from crossing that risk/reward line.

  14. amy says:

    So people who develop a serious illness should just suck it up?

    Insurance companies are there to make a profit. They do so by the methods you mentioned above. It doesn’t make it any better that thousands of people suffer and become disabled because of these illnesses (MS and Rheumatoid Arthritis come to mind immediately). Guess what? Many of these will eventually end up on disability and end up costing more money in the long run.

    I’m a fiscal conservative, but there has to be some humanity in our approach to this. There are no easy solutions, but practically berating someone who is uninsurable because they’re stuck between the proverbial rock and hard place doesn’t help the situation.

  15. Stephen Boyle says:

    As Michael points out, the problem in the “pre-existing condition” crowd is that they can’t get insurance for illnesses unrelated to the pre-existing condition. additionally, even renewing an insurance policy after a long-term condition is discovered seems counter to the idea of insurance, since there is a 100% chance of payouts on that condition.

    If there was a way to encapsulate the costs consistent with a diagnosis into a known liability for the insurance provider once a diagnosis is made, then it might be possible to continue to sell insurance to people while completely excluding the known condition from the policy.

    There are undoubtedly numerous problems with this, and maybe it’s already been considered and discarded, but at least it keeps insurance as insurance and not as income redistribution.

  16. JD says:

    What about the collective bargaining ability of an insurance company? It is difficult to negotiate costs effectively in an emergency room. But the uninsured are often charged higher rates due to greater risk of default and inability to bargain as a group.

    We don’t have an intermediate system where a company could prove you have assets (difficult when suffering from a heart attack) and ensure that you are charged reasonable rates for care.

    Family members could do this in some cases but not all cases.

  17. Michael says:

    So people who develop a serious illness should just suck it up?

    In short, yes. Historically, this is how society has kept down the cost of health care, we let people die even when we had the medicine to save them.

    A less drastic approach would be just to let people suffer a little. For example, does an 80 year old really need a hip replacement, when they could live out the rest of their life in a wheelchair? Lots of people live their entire life in a wheelchair, so is it justifiable to spend several hundreds of thousands of dollars on a surgery that their life didn’t depend on?

    An even less drastic approach, do we really need to keep people overnight in a hospital just because they’re waiting on the results of a test, or because there is a possibility they will get worse at home?

    Much of our problem is our aversion to pain and suffering has produced a culture where any risk that can be mitigated must be mitigated. Case in point, last time my kid was diagnosed with the common cold, he was given a prescription for antibiotics, even though they won’t actually do anything against a cold virus. Why? Because “They won’t hurt, and there’s a chance he may have or get a virus too, so lets use some just in case”.

  18. anjin-san says:

    Most of the “transfer of wealth” harping comes, I suspect, from people who are relatively young or middle aged with no significant health problems.

    Time will introduce them to some hard realities, namely that we are all composed of rather fragile flesh and blood, and that we will almost all eventually have health care costs that exceed our individual ability to pay for.

  19. od says:

    Most of the “transfer of wealth” harping comes, I suspect, from people who are relatively young or middle aged with no significant health problems.

    Actually in Canada there is no shortage of elderly people saying that medicare covers too much – that it has gone far beyond what it was initially supposed to cover, and so a huge portion of its cost is devoted to people with only a few years left. Some of this is probably because a good portion of the elderly are fairly well off and so can afford private health care (ie have a lifetime of savings to fall back on), but many claim its because they’ve come to terms with death and they’re worried that the drain of pharmacare and the like will cause the system to collapse, leaving their grandchildren without any gov’t coverage.

    A major lesson of Canadian health care is that medical costs can rise almost indefinitely. At some point a society has to decide what can and what can’t be covered. My preference is for a system somewhere between fully funding every medical procedure, and funding none of them – kind of like the one first introduced into Canada.

  20. anjin-san says:

    od… good point, thought I was referring to the harpers on this blog. Certainly there are hard choices to be made in relationship to health care costs.

    When my Father found out he was dying of cancer, he declined care beyond morphine. He said he had lived his life and he had no wish to leave his wife with a pile of bills.

    No one is saying government care would be some sort of panacea. But we need to make some changes, and McCain’s “health care for the healthy and wealthy” plan is not the answer, nor is having private companies rake in billions in profits off of health insurance.

  21. Mike P says:

    Guess I should take my fairly healthy 30 year old self (save for the rheumatoid arthritis I developed out of nowhere at age 26) off and die quietly in a corner somewhere when it gets really bad and I don’t have employer backed insurance.

  22. M1EK says:

    Again, we have to pretend Western Europe doesn’t exist.

    There’s a good reason people keep conflating health care with health insurance: it’s virtually impossible in the modern world to deliver health care without either health insurance or a universal coverage system. And there’s no way to get to a world in which it IS possible to deliver health care without an insurance or government safety net behind it.

  23. But when you pool people with pre-existing conditions with those who are healthy, you are basically providing a transfer of income form those who are healthy to those who have pre-existing conditions.

    This is b.s. ALL insurance is about transferring income from those who are healthy to those who are sick. It’s the same with auto insurance. If I am healthy for my entire life until the day I keel over and die from a massive heart attack, but pay insurance premiums for the entirety of my working life, all of that money has been transferred to sick people.

    Same with homeowners, auto insurance, etc. You’re placing a bet with the insurance company.

    Anyone received a rebate check from an insurance company lately for premiums paid when you left?

    {crickets}

    I can’t believe you’re actually advancing this argument.

  24. anjin-san says:

    Lets think about car insurance. I have an excellent driving record, have not had a ticket in 19 years. I have a very good car in excellent repair, I live and work in safe areas. I have good eyesight and excellent reflexes. I don’t drink. I only drive about 5k a year.

    So, I think it is safe to say that my insurance premiums are, at least to some extent, a wealth transfer to those who have poor eyesight, have bad brakes, are careless, work in shaky neighborhoods, drink far too much and support Bush, and so on.

    Now I could follow Bit’s example and whine, whine, whine, but what’s the point? I want everyone to have insurance. It’s just better all the way around. And I can always get unlucky, then I will need my insurance.

  25. Bithead says:

    Now I could follow Bit’s example and whine, whine, whine, but what’s the point?

    Actually with automobile insurance you have another option. Specifically you can move your backside to another insurance company who won’t charge you quite so much, or who gives you better service, or whatever. However, postulate with me a government monopoly on automobile insurance. Under such a circumstance, you no longer have the option of finding another insurance company, do you?

  26. Anon says:

    Well, here’s a scenario then. Suppose someone has health insurance. He gets cancer. It’s treatable, will be covered, and will cost $50K. Then, his insurance company goes bankrupt. He now has a pre-existing condition, no one will cover him, and he dies because he doesn’t have $50K.

  27. Bithead says:

    Anon, by what moral right do you take money from my pocket by means of force, to cover the situation?

  28. Bithead says:

    ALL insurance is about transferring income from those who are healthy to those who are sick.

    True. But they had the under private insurance, the individual had the choice of which company to do business with, which one fit their needs. No such choice with government run ‘insurance’.

  29. anjin-san says:

    I, for one, am not necessarily arguing for the elimination of private insurance and a government monopoly. I think a grandiose “tear down the whole house and rebuild it” approach has a lot of problems.

    I have always liked Gov. Dean’s approach. Let’s start with folks who have no coverage and get them a minimal level of coverage. No more taking the kids to the ER because they have a cough. Let’s try to save people who have problems that are preventable or highly treatable with early detection. Let’s accomplish that and build out from there.

    I see no reason why folks who have the means cannot have private insurance or pay 100% out of pocket if they can afford it. I have a friend who just paid 800k out of pocket because he said he did not want to lose his leg while the insurance company dicked him around. Good for him.

    Bit keep running from the fact that one day he or a loved one may well be the one getting care on someone else’s dime…

  30. anjin-san says:

    But they had the under private insurance, the individual had the choice of which company to do business with, which one fit their needs

    In a lot of cases your employer dictates your insurer, with no choice.

  31. od says:

    Anon, by what moral right do you take money from my pocket by means of force, to cover the situation?

    Well, that’s the question for any gov’t expenditure, isn’t it? Why should money be taken from my pocket to put out a fire in someone’s else’s house, or to pay for the police that arrest someone who didn’t murder me, or to pay for an army fighting in a country that I don’t care about?

    Why not have private fire fighting, private police, and private armies? Each would certainly be profitable enough as private enterprise. Generally each society determines what is public and what is private based on its own values. The question isn’t if society has a right to tax (in general its accepted it does), the question is merely one of which issues should tax money support.

  32. Our Paul says:

    Just two random questions and comments:

    Why are we paying more for health care, on a per capita basis, than any other developed country in the world?

    Why are we paying up to 2X more, on a per capita basis, for medication than any other developed country in the world?

    As you ponder those two questions, you will find the answer to how the Americans are different from the French. In France, when a crime is committed, the operating axiom is “Find the Women”. Here in the US, the axiom is “Fallow the Money Trail”.

    The Outside the Beltway spam filter will exclude most posts with more than three links. Thus, substantiating your view by linking to information is quite difficult.

    What needs neither substantiation or links is that Insurance companies are not in the business of providing Health Care, they really do not give a dam about their customers who may suddenly suffer unexpected illness. They will fiddle the system where ever they can, for they are in the business of making money. The health of their customers is a secondary consideration.

    We all should be grateful to Steve Verdon for reminding us of this fact.

  33. rodney dill says:

    Why are we paying more for health care, on a per capita basis, than any other developed country in the world?
    Because we are footing the bill for a lot of the world advancements and research in medical care. (Yes I know there are probably examples of a few other countries that are just as advanced)

  34. rodney dill says:

    Anon, by what moral right do you take money from my pocket by means of force, to cover the situation?

    Who needs a moral right, only a legal one is needed.

  35. sam says:

    And, of course, with the expanding application of genetic testing, the extension of the concept of a “pre-existing” condition would, under the Verdon regime, preclude more and more folks from getting insurance. What we have to keep in mind re insurance companies is that they are not in the business of paying out claims.

  36. Bithead says:

    In a lot of cases your employer dictates your insurer, with no choice.

    In that event, you can go to another employer. I’ve done that once, myself, and threatened to in another case, and they relented. Again, in a government monopoly, you have no such choice.

    Bit keep running from the fact that one day he or a loved one may well be the one getting care on someone else’s dime…

    Actually, no I don’t. But you’re arguing consequentialism. I’m arguing more basic than that, dealing with the underlying morality questinos of what you propose. I find your argument lacking, there.

    Why are we paying up to 2X more, on a per capita basis, for medication than any other developed country in the world?

    Because we’re the ones doing the developing, and because of the degree of governmental involvement.

    Why not have private fire fighting, private police, and private armies?

    I submit that is already happening in many lcoations. Private police? We call the, “Security agencies’. Private fire? Most major corporations have them. Hereabouts, Jodak and Xerox, for example, have their own fire departments, as well as their own police, for lack of a better term.

    Each would certainly be profitable enough as private enterprise. Generally each society determines what is public and what is private based on its own values. The question isn’t if society has a right to tax (in general its accepted it does), the question is merely one of which issues should tax money support.

    So, what you’re argung for, since government run healthcare would be a foundational change, is for a foundational change in values. I submit that accomplishing this is going to take far more convincing arguments than what exist today.

    Who needs a moral right, only a legal one is needed

    Rodney, that meshes rather well with the values comment, above, in this way; So far, the arguments presented have been largely based on the right of government to do what’s proposed, rather than the moraliy of that situation.

    Do not, please, mistake my question “Anon, by what moral right do you take money from my pocket by means of force, to cover the situation?” …as a dismissal of the need, but let’s call things what they are, here, as Verdon suggests. The questions being asked by those supporting government healthcare, seem to revolve around the worst case scenario. Ex;

    Bit keep running from the fact that one day he or a loved one may well be the one getting care on someone else’s dime…

    Let’s remember that what’s being discussed there is called ‘charity’ Problem; Government force, which is really what is being advocated to solve such issues, is not charity. It is force.

  37. Michael says:

    Bithead,
    The moral reason is that you benefit from living in a society with a healthy population, therefore it is in your personal and financial interest to maintain a certain level of health among your fellow citizens. That is the same moral reason for having public police and fire departments, as public education and our armed forces. If you benefit from them, you should help fund them.

  38. od says:

    I submit that is already happening in many lcoations. Private police? We call the, “Security agencies’. Private fire? Most major corporations have them. Hereabouts, Jodak and Xerox, for example, have their own fire departments, as well as their own police, for lack of a better term.

    Still, for by far the most part the police, fire departments, and armies are paid for by tax dollars by people who aren’t using them. The moral precedent for taxing people for services they don’t use has already been set, the question is now just one of what services this should cover.

  39. anjin-san says:

    Actually, no I don’t. But you’re arguing consequentialism. I’m arguing more basic than that, dealing with the underlying morality questinos of what you propose. I find your argument lacking, there.

    I think you are hiding behind semantics because you know you argument is weak. Repeat, it is almost certain that you or a loved one will one day be getting health care on some one else’s dime. Is it only morally wrong when you are not the one that needs it?

    As for your continued references to “government monopoly” I am not arguing in favor of any kind of monopoly, and I don’t think I remember anyone else doing so in this thread… Another right wing canard designed to elicit an emotional response and cloud the issue.

  40. Michael says:

    I think you are hiding behind semantics because you know you argument is weak. Repeat, it is almost certain that you or a loved one will one day be getting health care on some one else’s dime. Is it only morally wrong when you are not the one that needs it?

    Anjin-san, it’s entirely possible that Bithead will continue to believe it is wrong, even while using it when he needs it. After all, he believes that many aspects of the Federal Government are wrong, but he’s not boycotting or revolting against it. It is perfectly acceptable, morally and legally, to follow and benefit from rules that you oppose.

  41. Our Paul says:

    rodney dill:

    Because we are footing the bill for a lot of the world advancements and research in medical care. (Yes I know there are probably examples of a few other countries that are just as advanced)

    The major pharmaceutical companies (Pharma) are multi-national, and are following the same pattern. They are cutting their research efforts and are closing their research laboratories. What they are doing is selectively buying up small research shops, which usually are spin offs from Academic Centers world wide. The product is then manufactured and marketed.

    In the US, Pharma pays more for advertising than for it R&D efforts. Yup, next time use see one of those advertisements for Viagra, try to think of Health Care costs.

    Bithead:

    Because we’re the ones doing the developing, and because of the degree of governmental involvement.

    See above, but you are getting there. You are quite right about government involvement. The moment the Republican Congress and Administration tacked on the infamous drug benefit, drug/medication prices started to climb at a more rapid rate than cost of living adjustment.

    Among fans of Health Care Economics is examination of the persistent myths. These myths are usually referred to as Health Care Zombies. One such Zombie is that we, the US public, the great unwashed among the few Lexus drivers, are blessed by the Lord, to pay for Medical advances which benefit socialist countries.

    To all:

    Gird your loins, exercise your brain, read and ponder. We are facing a critical election. Like it or not, we are going to have to examine McCain’s health care policies, and try to defend them from the pointy head socialist intellectual crowd.

  42. Bithead says:

    The moral reason is that you benefit from living in a society with a healthy population

    No, that’s not morality; that’s possible not assured, conseqeunces.

    I think you are hiding behind semantics because you know you argument is weak. Repeat, it is almost certain that you or a loved one will one day be getting health care on some one else’s dime.

    Only because I’ve never been allowed, given the taxes I’m paying, to provide for myself in that area to the maximum degree I could.

    As for your continued references to “government monopoly” I am not arguing in favor of any kind of monopoly, and I don’t think I remember anyone else doing so in this thread… Another right wing canard designed to elicit an emotional response and cloud the issue.

    So, with government controlling healthcare, and a goodly portion f the dollars fed into taht system how is this not a monopoly?

    the Republican Congress and Administration tacked on the infamous drug benefit, drug/medication prices started to climb at a more rapid rate than cost of living adjustment.

    Well, now wait. Let’s remember that the Democrats were pissed because they thought it didn’t go far enough. Had they been in power the belenfits plans you rightly deride, would ahve been even more dollars.

    That’s by no means a defnese, but it does explain how centrists claiming to be Republicans lached onto that particular monster. With real conservatives (Clue, McCain doesn’t qualify) we’d not have had such a bill at all… and that would be very preferable.

    But my response was more focused on intrusins into healthcare prior to that. Medicare/caid, as an example. Historicaly, healthcare costs have gone up in direct proportion to the amount of governmental interference. A track on the thing from 1965 forward should give you the clue, there.

    Anjin-san, it’s entirely possible that Bithead will continue to believe it is wrong, even while using it when he needs it. After all, he believes that many aspects of the Federal Government are wrong, but he’s not boycotting or revolting against it. It is perfectly acceptable, morally and legally, to follow and benefit from rules that you oppose

    As an example, Anjin; Did you toss back all the economic gains you made under Reagan?

    One such Zombie is that we, the US public, the great unwashed among the few Lexus drivers, are blessed by the Lord, to pay for Medical advances which benefit socialist countries.

    (Chuckle)
    So, we stopped duming money into the UN, then?

  43. anjin-san says:

    Only because I’ve never been allowed, given the taxes I’m paying, to provide for myself in that area to the maximum degree I could.

    Doubtful. Lets assume you got a rebate check for back taxes tomorrow, say 250k. Guess what, when the shit hits the fan, that won’t take you all that far.

    As an example, Anjin; Did you toss back all the economic gains you made under Reagan?

    ??? do you read my posts? I voted for Reagan twice, thought then and think now that he was a fine President. I said so just a few threads back. Personally, I did not make great economic gains under Reagan. Was too busy having fun in those days.

    So, with government controlling healthcare, and a goodly portion f the dollars fed into taht system how is this not a monopoly?

    I for one, am not arguing for government monopoly, I favor Gov. Dean’s approach, which I have detailed many times.

  44. Michael says:

    No, that’s not morality; that’s possible not assured, conseqeunces.

    It’s still the justification for using taxes to pay for other public services, so why doesn’t it work for health care?

  45. It’s still the justification for using taxes to pay for other public services, so why doesn’t it work for health care?

    You need a justification for using taxes for public services? Who knew?

    FWIW, lots of tax dollars are used for healthcare today. They are called Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, VA, Tricare, CDC, Indian Health Service, and countless grants and earmarks to universities, hospitals, clinics, etc. The argument at hand is whether some healthcare will remain voluntary or whether we will all be forced into a government run program.

  46. Our Paul says:

    Bithead:

    Always glad to tickle your funbone with:

    One such Zombie is that we, the US public, the great unwashed among the few Lexus drivers, are blessed by the Lord, to pay for Medical advances which benefit socialist countries.

    But, your response is at best a bit bizarre:

    (Chuckle)
    So, we stopped duming money into the UN, then?

    What the UN has to do with Americans paying 2X more for medications that any other developed country in the world is beyond the scope of my rum sodden brain. I would love to give you more chuckles, but dinner is approaching. How about a couple of great thigh slappers?

    One of Bush’s proposals for this disparity in drug costs between US and European countries was to ask them to increase their price of drugs.

    John McCain’s solution? Allow re-importation of drugs from other countries.

  47. anjin-san says:

    The argument at hand is whether some healthcare will remain voluntary or whether we will all be forced into a government run program.

    No, its not. Another red herring.

  48. Big Pharma is caught in a bind because other countries demand lower prices or they won’t repsect the patents. That sucks but our government seems to be more interested in protecting Hollywood’s entertainment products than drugs that help people when ot comes to protecting our economic interests. While some semblance of a free market is maintained here, most of the rest of the world gets yet another free ride on our backs. Allowing the reimportation of drugs is a bad, bad idea for economic and safety reasons, but it would be nice if our shoulders weren’t required to be quite so broad.

  49. Our Paul says:

    Charles Austin:

    Said it before, and I will say it again. You should carefully read the article by Barer, Evans, Hertzman, and Johri titled “Lies, Damned Lies, and Health Care Zombies: Discredited Ideas That Will Not Die”. I know, it’s kind of old hat, and 76 some odd PDF pages long, but it is scholarly, and it is humbling, and it is kind of fun. There is something to be said for elegant writing…

    But what Barer and his colleagues really point out is that Health Care zombies permeate our discussions. Here is a twofere zombie for

    you: While some semblance of a free market is maintained here, most of the rest of the world gets yet another free ride on our backs.

    How does Germany, France, the Scandinavian countries, Italy, Canada, etc. get a “free ride on our backs”?

    Do you not understand that there is no “free market… maintained here”? Health Insurance is a conglomerate of companies that set prices and manipulate fees.

    Are you unaware that most physician prefer single pay, universal health coverage?

    Now then, in my posted comments on health care I may rant and rave, tweak noses, point to zombies, but I link to information. If you tried to substantiate your position by linking to a recognized source, well then, you just might change your opinion.

  50. Bithead says:

    Hmmm. Lots to catch up on here.

    Doubtful. Lets assume you got a rebate check for back taxes tomorrow, say 250k. Guess what, when the shit hits the fan, that won’t take you all that far.

    You’re comparing Apples and grapefruit. The fact is that when you’re younger, the kind of externeded healthcare is not needed for the most part and peple would be able to put that money aside, for use later on. Of course they’re not encouraged to do so, being rather dependant on governmental largess. Intersting how these same people who complain about how Americans aren’t saving money anymore are also the ones providing the cause for that direction.

    But, your response is at best a bit bizarre:

    Well, most humor is. But in fact, a great deal of the medical developments we have here in the US, are of benefit to the third world by means of internationla aid, through the UN. That we train their doctors would also seem a benefit.

    John McCain’s solution? Allow re-importation of drugs from other countries.

    Well, allow me to remind you (again) that my respect and admiration for John McCain is very limited.

    our government seems to be more interested in protecting Hollywood’s entertainment products than drugs that help people when ot comes to protecting our economic interests.

    Quite so. Then again, that’s as good an indicator as I can think of, as to where the money is.

    How does Germany, France, the Scandinavian countries, Italy, Canada, etc. get a “free ride on our backs”?

    Is there an R&D on the planet that rivals what we’re doing in healthcare here in the ‘states? No.
    So, what would YOU call it, then?

  51. Kate says:

    not everyone with a preexisting condition is an old sickly person gobbling up healthcare costs. Picture this, a few years ago, I had a tiny benign growth that I had surgically removed because it was painful, but not life-threatening. One procedure, and it was all done and I’m healthy. Just one procedure, and now I am DENIED private healthcare. Is it really selfish of me to be upset about that? I can’t even get the basic “emergency coverage”. I have to wait until it’s been five years since the procedure. My husband has insurance through his employer, but it won’t cover spouses, and I can’t afford to work full time because I am taking care of my child, and childcare would outweigh the income. I have to wait five years to have another, because I need insurance to be able to afford to have another baby. Perhaps in your sick mind, you would see this as darwinism. God forbid I have a child who might have a mole that needs to be removed someday.