Comments on: Yes, Mr. President, Some of Us Will Have to Go Without Health Care

By: Alex Knepper

Alex Knepper — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 08:10:16 +0000

At whose expense?

By: Tim Hulsey

Tim Hulsey — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 07:44:38 +0000

Yes, yes, Swemson — my own health insurance policy has a high deductible, possibly high enough to qualify me for Obama's new "breath tax." But even catastrophic health care policies have benefit caps, and those caps are a major problem in our current health-care system. So: Do we outlaw these caps, leave unfortunate individuals to pass their expenses to hospitals, or enact some form of super-catastrophic health insurance at the federal level? If we outlaw benefit caps, either insurance premiums will skyrocket or insurers will go out of business. If we force hospitals to "eat" these costs, the price of health care will continue to rise. These scenarios will set us up for "Health Care Reform 2: Dawn of the Single Payer" — a sequel I'm sure none of us would desire to see, even in 3-D.

Of course, under Medicare and Medicaid, we already "spread the wealth" for this sort of medical care while simultaneously forcing hospitals to absorb much of the cost. (It's the worst of both worlds.) The primary difference between super-catastrophic health insurance and Medicaid would be that a patient and/or spouse wouldn't have to quit a well-paying job to qualify for the former. Plus, with super-catastrophic insurance, we might be able to reduce hospitals' overhead costs, which might translate into savings for the hoi polloi.

By: betty boop

betty boop — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 01:12:16 +0000

Ah, Swemson, you've invoked my hero Ayn. Alex has nailed this subject as clearly as the master herself.

By: Swemson

Swemson — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 23:05:48 +0000

Huh?

Why would that be more justified or constitutional than just GIVING them heathcare, why not GIVE them life insurance while you're at it?

If GIVING people healthcare is wrong (because the government has to TAKE the money from others to do so) then how could that not also be wrong?

Do YOU want to pay for it? And if you already have insurance, why can't you buy it yourself?

If someone has the misfortune to incur HUGE medical bills, should SOCIETY have to pay for it? All you're doing there is "spreading the wealth".

Many smart people buy insurance ONLY to protect themselves from BIG medical expenses, simply by buying it with with just a $5,000 deductible.

By: Tim Hulsey

Tim Hulsey — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 22:42:01 +0000

Alex: What would you say to national catastrophic health insurance — a policy with an annual deductible of, say, $250,000 dollars? It would provide an additional safety net for individuals who already own health insurance, protecting them against benefit caps.

By: Alex Knepper

Alex Knepper — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 19:12:21 +0000

Indeed. Her philosophical Swiss army knife of premise-checking ideas is very much needed in times like these. People would do well to read her book "Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal."

By: Swemson

Swemson — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 18:28:43 +0000

Alex;

Thank you for saying what heeded to be said in such a straightforward manner.

Ayn Rand summed up the underlying principle behind your post in 5 words when she said:

Need is not a claim!