How to Cure Health Care (old, but Milton Friedman destroys one of the Lefts's favorite causes)

Hoover Institution ^ | 2001 | Milton Friedman

[hopespringseternal]

I doubt it...they may save the govt money on social security payments since they don't collect as long, but in general smokers have a lot more, and a lot more expensive ailments that need to be paid for by somebody...nobody justs drops dead from smoking...its usually a long drawn out and expensive (and painful) demise.

SS payments are part of the deal, but not all. Nonsmokers might live twenty years (or more) longer, ten of which may require a lot of expensive medical care.

Smokers, on the other hand tend to expire pretty quickly if the smoking catches up with them. You are talking about months vs years.

[hopespringseternal]

I had Unicare in Texas. For a family of three it ran about 3k a year, and we didn't have the cheapest option.

Keep in mind though that if you have regular, expensive procedures done or an existing medical condition that sort of options isn't going to be available for you.

In Texas, you can get two people together and call it a company and the insurance providers must offer you a policy.

[Anthony Bruni]

These sorts of smoker cost-benefit analyses are slippery because of elasticity in the definitions of terms such as "smoking-related illness." (e.g. Does starting a fire while smoking in bed count?)

Anyway, I don't have hard numbers on this, but my guess is that the amount of health care $$ spent in the last 6 months of life does not vary much between smokers and nonsmokers.

Some numbers I do know: on average, smokers live 7 years less than non-smokers. Smokers have roughly a 1 in 3 chance of dying of a smoking-related illness.

I'm a nonsmoker by the way, but I think we've gone way too far down this road. I live in NY where smoking in bars will soon be banned. The left is always calling conservatives fascists. Well, IMO the anti-smoking zealotry of late is actual fascism.

[justshutupandtakeit]

So you believe the Tobacco case settlement should have the States paying the Companies? LoL.

[IncPen]

people who are too stupid to save for medical problems, and drug addicts. Sadly, these are the biggest burdens on our system today, and the reason that the limited success that government health care enjoys in other societies

Try making this argument on a War on Drugs thread.

They don't wanna hear it; in their world there are no consequences...

[wjcsux]

Bump for later.

[P.O.E.]

Emergency rooms have been turned into clinics for drug addicts, alcoholics, the mentally unstable, and the many, many poor people who have no coverage.

These people are not stupid. They realize it's a free ride.

The tragedy of the commons will not be ameliorated through socialism. It will only spread the failure among more and more people.

[cruiserman]

his solution does not take into account people who are too stupid to save for medical problems, and drug addicts.

So the needs of the few are held above the needs of the many.

[Sam Cree]

"tort/medical malpractice reform"

That's a very good point. I believe that trial lawyers overwhelmingly and generously support the Democratic Party

[Sam Cree]

"someone that makes 20K per year is going to be able to afford a 7-8-9-10K family policy?"

One of his points was that health insurance should only be for "catastrophic" medical events, not for every mundane medical event, as it is now. If health insurance did not have to cover every day to day doctor's visit and med, it would likely be quite affordable for most of us.

[Sam Cree]

"Friedman's solutions sound good in theory but no Republican could implement them and remain in office. No RAT is honest enough to do it even if he could get away with it.

Friedman agrees with you near the end of the essay, and for reasons similar to what you give in your point 1).

[Jack Black]

bump

[Jack Black]

bump

[freeper12]

>>One of his points was that health insurance should only be for "catastrophic" medical events, not for every mundane medical event, as it is now.

I agree...where I live they are almost impossible to buy .(catastrophic policies)

[hunter112]

So the needs of the few are held above the needs of the many.

I'm not saying that Dr. Friedman's ideas shouldn't be tried, but they will not stop the rampant "third partying" that is going on with people who just get hauled into the ER when they crash and burn.

I advocate two systems of medical care: one for people who are paying, and one for people who are getting the government to pay for it. Move working people to the tops of the lists, so they can get back to productive work sooner, welfare types have plenty of time to sit around and wait. Also, there should be no right to sue if you've got freebie care, only a government board that might determine gross malpractice only, and then compensate only for what it takes to make it right, not pain and suffering, and lawyer fees. Milton Friedman's ideas are only a start, we need something more comprehensive to deal with this country's coming medical crisis that threatens us all.