I don’t see how – because we’ll still have to pay for the uninsured. I’ve been mulling this over since reading a post on Health Care Policy and Marketplace Review. Bob’s post points out that a large enough group spreads risk well enough to help keep insurance affordable.
My take is coverage has to be mandated in order to prevent cost-shifting.
Without universal coverage, we’re stuck with some subsidizing others. And this hidden tax coupled with the patterns of care for the uninsured (little preventive care and too much care late in the disease state) makes for higher costs for everyone. Thus if we don’t cover everyone we can’t adequately address the cost issue.
And we’ll have this hidden tax and cross-subsidization that adds admin expense and ticks off those who pay for those who can’t (or won’t).
“Without universal coverage, we’re stuck with some subsidizing others.”
I don’t understand how subsidizing others will go away with universal insurance.
According to research published by the Kaiser Family Foundation the prevalence of uninsured is largely a result of poverty. One specific KFF finding is that 65% of the uninsured are at or below 2X’s the Federal poverty level and more than 95% below 4X’s. Covering these uninsured in a universal insurance scheme will require continued subsidies.
In a universal scheme the subsidies would presumably apply to insurance premiums rather than directly to health care costs. But why wouldn’t they be roughly equivalent?
And the premium subsidies would be funded by tax dollars (i.e., by you and me) rather than via premiums paid by people who currently buy insurance (i.e., by you and me).
I can well understand that our insurance premiums would reduce and our taxes increase by roughly equivalent amounts.
But it still looks to me like some subsidizing others.
I think there will always be some subsidization, unless we’re willing to let poor people die because they can’t afford penicillin. The question is, do we subsidize them efficiently or inefficiently? And I think that’s what Joe is driving at as well. The argument is that people who access preventive treatments end up costing the system less than people who let things go until they reach very serious levels. I’ve always been curious as to whether there is any research on the matter and what that research shows.
The fundamental problem with healthcare is not insurance at all.
We as a people have been convinced that we must go to a doctor, Urgent Care or Hospital for virtually every issue.
We have also been trained that prescriptions will solve all ills. Instead of handling the source of the problem we want the easy way out. If you have weight induced diabetes, why not lose weight. For depression, get counseling or go for a daily walk through a park. If you have acid reflux try to stop consuming the offending drinks and foods.
We all must take care of ourselves, limit unhealthy activities and be wise consumers.
Insurance premiums used to be $50/ mo for family coverage 40 years ago. Why? Because we took care of ourselves and utilized medicine when actually needed.
Review the socialist countries and you will see why they can offer universal care. Very few use it!
If we instituted universal care here in the USA it could be chaos. The government has enough trouble with Social Security and Medicare funds running out, why would we give them more money and responsibility?