Mark Steyn: No Tiers Left to Shed (Re: Canada's vaunted health-care system.)

The National Post via SteynOnline ^ | January 12, 2003 | Mark Steyn

[alrea]

ping

[OESY]

What are the chances of them needing health care, and why should they pay $400/month for insurance?

(We know why -- to offset the costs of those who do need it -- and that's the only reason politicians want to insure them.)

Almost, except many don't need the healthcare as packaged. State politicians have tried to satisfy their special interest campaign contributors such as psychiatrists, chiropractors (no hospital will hire them) and other nonessential reader/advisors by passing over 300 legislative coverage mandates.

Not only do these mandates jack up the cost of health insurance for businesses, but they have the dysfunctional effect of pricing many individuals out of the market as well, while providing bleeding-heart liberals with a potent campaign issue since few voters understand the root causes.

The way to bring down healthcare costs and the pool of uninsured is to allow health insurance to be sold across state lines via the Internet, as Gingrich has advocated.

[robertpaulsen]

"The way to bring down healthcare costs and the pool of uninsured is to allow health insurance ..."

You're assuming healthy people in their 20's and 30's wish to obtain it. My point was, at that age, they have better things to do with that $400, $300, or even $200/month. You'd have to make it mandatory.

Even if it were part of their compensation package where they work, I bet 99% of them would rather have the money than the insurance.

[OESY]

Excuse me, but it is you who is saying insurance coverage must be mandatory. I am saying that it can and should be cheaper if tailored to individual needs, and that I trust individuals to make their own choices as to whether they want the coverage or not, and indeed what specific coverages they want. (I suspect you may not have fully read my comment or absorbed its meaning.)

Neither you, me, state legislatures, or the federal government can, or should be able to, make a decision on behalf of all individuals who desire health insurance. Most of those who are uncovered now may still elect to go without, which I believe is their right.

Furthermore, I believe that, with very few exceptions, interstate commerce should be free of barriers -- whether in the form of tariffs, "fair" trade laws or mandated insurance coverages. Mandating coverages and fabricating barriers in restraint of trade makes programs inefficient, costly and undesirable.

[robertpaulsen]

"Excuse me, but it is you who is saying insurance coverage must be mandatory"

Au contraire.

I'm saying that the majority of people who buy health insurance are those who are at risk or who are already sick. In order to lower the monthly cost, it would be necessary to force everyone to purchase insurance, thus spreading the risk. This is the reason the politicians are harping about the "uninsured". I vehemently oppose mandatory heath insurance, though you and I both know the uninsured will then receive "free" healthcare.

Actually, I believe we're in agreement on this issue. IMO, one way to lower costs would be to offer an MSA covering catastrophic care and cash payments for day-to-day illnesses, the end-of year balance going to the individual.

Another would be to force Medicare patients into a clinic, rather than the ER.

A third, eliminate the vote-grabbing prescription drug coverage. This is nothing more than Hillary-care in stages.