What's next in the health insurance battle?

The Associated Press

Will they face competition from government?

Featured Topic | Posted 27 weeks 14 hours ago

What's next in the health insurance battle?

Anybody who sat through 16 minutes of debate about who -- Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama -- would provide universal health insurance could be forgiven for forgetting that there's still a debate over whether government-backed coverage is a desirable thing. But John McCain has plans of his own, and they don't include government-provided insurance.

Should government offer universal coverage? Or is there a better, market-driven solution?

Ben likes: The real reformer

Robert Goldberg/The Weekly Standard

McCain's plan is based around patient-centered initiatives that already have broad support among Republicans in Congress. They include letting people buy health insurance nationally instead of only from state-regulated firms; giving people the choice of purchasing coverage through cooperatives or other organizations (churches or civic groups, for example); expanding health savings accounts; and making health insurance portable by giving people tax credits of up to $5,000 per family to buy their own coverage instead of getting it through an employer.

His chief concern is for people to take ownership of their health care.

Joel likes: The lessons of '94

Ezra Klein/The American Prospect

All the major Democrats currently campaigning have proposed similar health care plans based on three planks: Universal access, an expansion of something like the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program that includes a public insurance option, and the preservation of current insurance choices. This is not, from a policy standpoint, the best way forward. These plans do not fully integrate the system, and initially, they will not do enough to control costs.

But politically, it's close to the only way forward. Those three planks translate into three arguments that will undergird the case for reform: If you like your current health care coverage, nothing will change; if you're not satisfied with your current coverage, you can buy into the same health care plan that members of Congress use; and no matter what you decide, you will have more choices than you have now. That is how health care will be explained.

Where do you stand on this issue?

Click on the graph to cast your vote.

average
vote

your vote

Email Topic

Add a thought

Thoughts

Free Markets -- All The Way!

Submitted on March 3rd, 2008 by Anonymous

Free markets are the proper way to go.

Lin Zinser and I have written an article on health care history and policy on precisely this topic. It's entitled "Moral Health Care vs. 'Universal Health Care'" and it has appeareed in the Winter 2007-2008 issue of the national journal, The Objective Standard.

The full text of the article is available online for free at:
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issu... or http://tinyurl.com/25zffu

We argue that the current crisis in American health care is the result of decades of government interference and violations of individual rights in health insurance and medicine. Hence the solution to the problem is not more government controls but instead to gradually and systematically transition to a rights-respecting, fully free market in those industries.

Paul Hsieh, MD
E-mail:
Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine: http://www.WeStandFIRM.org

Lin Zinser, JD
Founder and Executive Director of FIRM: http://www.WeStandFIRM.org
E-mail:

On Sharing Information

Submitted on March 2nd, 2008 by Anonymous

The companies will have an incentive themselves. Think about it this way. If I pay you 100 dollars to do a job or I give you 70 dollars and promise you health insurance that costs 30 dollars, you might like that idea if you are very sick. Heck, you may use well over that $30.00.

But let's say your family, like mine, generally lives to be well over 80. (Gotta love those genes, baby.) This deal seems like a rip off. Of course, I know this about my genes because I've been genetically sequenced.

If companies want to require people to take genetic tests, I don't have a problem with that. Some companies require their employees to take urine tests. I don't particularly like that, but I put up with it and don't do drugs.

Companies also like this policy because most people, luckily, don't get sick and don't use the value of their health insurance. Companies have to pay fewer dollars to get labor.

But, the solution is not to have companies provide health insurance at all. Why should a company provide health insurance? Most jobs don't come with a free car, food, or a house. Why should they come with health care?

There are about 17% of people that buy their own health insurance. If more people knew their expected risks, they would buy their own health insurance. People who are sick a lot could get sequenced and discover their risks. To lower their health insurance, they could show the insurers their diet, not take drugs, and not drink. They could make more informed decisions. People would take more care of themselves because they would be more likely to have to pay for the consequences.

The problem, of course, is that government picks and chooses what costs they want to cover. cough Medicare cough.

Health care and government

Submitted on March 2nd, 2008 by Joel

Hi Chuck:

I'm not sure the best approach to improving health coverage -- though I think it definitely needs improving -- but what you just wrote reads to me like an argument for government intervention. You're more or less saying that the market doesn't work, but your solution is more information.

Putting aside for the moment that all that genetic testing you're talking about is going to make it easier for companies to reject coverage -- and, hey, I thought we were trying to get more people covered -- who, exactly, is going to make (for example) companies provide more insurance choices to their employees? Doesn't that require some level of government meddling?

I'm not trying to start an argument here; I'm genuinely curious how you see this playing out.

Why We Cannot Fix The Health Care Problem With Government

Submitted on March 2nd, 2008 by Chuck_Johnson

A big reason markets fail is a principle known as asymmetry of information. In simple terms, it's some people known more about a product than others. It's why you cannot buy a decent used car. There's no immediate incentive for the seller to be honest about the car. Because no one trusts one another, the cost rises and the quality plummets.

Similarly, in the case of health insurance, there's no incentive for someone to reveal their own medical history. If they did, the costs of insurance would rise for themselves. Instead, they lie and the costs rise for all of us.

Naturally, there is a way to increase the information -- genetic testing and engineering and companies offering more choices for their employees. Workers should decide for themselves what kind of compensation they get from work.

Chuck Johnson is a student at Claremont McKenna College. He blogs at claremontconservative.blogspot.com.

This issue is essential to

Submitted on March 2nd, 2008 by Anonymous

This issue is essential to the next presidential election and not enough is known about the "plans" outlined by the candidates. The candidates tout healthcare for all but fail to define what that means, how it will be implemented, and what it will cost. There is no doubt that the current system is in crisis and is not working well for many Americans. How is it, then, that the insurance companies are able to make BILLION dollar profits? Why are they not being made to pay for the services contracted by the consumers? They were the ones who sold us a bill of goods when it came to switching to HMO/PPO's. It is now time for them to fulfill their end of the bargain.

The focus of healthcare should be on prevention yet there is little the insurances pay for in the name of prevention. For instance, smoking cessation programs, weight-loss programs, phytotherapies, gym memberships, etc. I realize that some insurances make small gestures toward these efforts but not enough to encourage people to participate.

Individual citizens do have a responsibility and need to be accountable for the decisions they make that negatively impact their health. There is a growing debate about whether or not we should have to pay for the person who is an alcoholic, a drug abuser, a smoker, obese, etc. I say we already are paying for them and want to hear more from the candidates about the "HOW" and not just the promises of passing universal coverage.

As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney and the legislature, passed a bill requiring all residents of MA to have health insurance by 7/1/2007. Here is what I was able to find out:

http://www.businessweek.com/investor/con...

http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/7494...

I urge everyone to check it out!