Thursday, March 29, 2012

Sophisticated Heathcare Discussion

Makes a good points about the actuarial risk imposed by the uninsured and how this is the government's best case. But also counters. It will be interesting to see how this shakes out. My basic thoughts:

1. It doesn't quite pass the smell test to force Americans to buy health insurance. How can the state force you to purchase anything? Also - it would seemingly pervert the market.

2. I'm not entirely sure health insurance is as big a problem as people think. People are living longer and our medicine is better - and hence more expensive. It is sort of like complaining about paying a lot of taxes because you make a lot of money. As Marlo would say, its "one of them good problems."

3. Something needs to be done about the issue of pre-existing conditions, but I'm not sure what.

4. Would the best system be something started from scratch which disconnects our health insurance from employers altogether and is a purely private purchase like car insurance? I know people are wedded to their programs, but if you are convinced HC is an urgent problem in need of fixing, why would this not work? It seems to work for car insurance.

2 comments:

Charles said...

"One of them good problems"

I don't think the broad statement that "people are living longer today" directly addresses this debate. To get a clearer view of health in America I think you need to break it down by group. Certainly educated/wealthy people are living longer in America -ie. those with jobs and healthcare.
But, I would guess that the rise within this (and a few other) group's life expectancy has skewed that of the whole.

Are the poor and ethnic minorities reaping the same benefits as the wealthy and the white?

I don't know the answer - I'm just skeptical of such a broadly stated claim.

Greg said...

well, you could always look up the data --

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr59/nvsr59_09.pdf

life expectancy is up amongst all races and genders and actually the gap has been closing since 1993. this doesn't break down the gap per income levels, but if the whole is going up, mathematically it cannot just be from the 1% outliers, which could not statistically impact the total population unless some people are living to 1000 or something.

in any case, the healthcare law doesn't effect the people you are concerned with - the least well off, ie people on Medicaid. (which amounts to 49 mil americans and 23% of californians). so even if your concerns were correct about expensive new products only helping the rich and white, the new healthcare law would not redistribute that excellent care any differently than it is currently distributed.

the better argument may be that longer life spans are not entirely because of the healthcare industry, per se, but just generally better health. such an argument, however, wouldn't lend itself either way to the obama healthcare proposal, which addresses healthcare as an industry.