Posted on 08/17/2007 10:19:30 AM PDT by RepublicanPatriot
Health insurance fundamentally is designed to shift the cost of providing health care from those who need it but can't afford it, to those who don't need it but can afford it. When people complain about a lack of national health insurance, in other words, what they really are saying is that someone else should be required to pay the cost of their medical care. Not only is this a radically irresponsible and immoral position in itself; but also, as a practical matter, few people, even in a society as rich as ours, have sufficient personal resources to pay out-of-pocket for the very best health care our medical industry has to offer in all contingencies. (Just as very few people can afford the nicest homes or fanciest cars or toniest prep schools.) So trying to shift the cost to other people through a scheme of national health insurance, ultimately, can't work. Whether individually or as a nation, we cannot consume more health care than we can afford.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
http://www.freemarketcure.com/uninsuredinamerica.php
Uninsured in America examines the conventional wisdom that 45 million Americans cannot get health insurance and consequently do not have access to health care.
Uninsured in America examines the conventional wisdom that 45 million Americans cannot get health insurance and consequently do not have access to health care. (2007) Run Time: 9:03
Uninsured in America is part of the Free Market Cure Video Series created by filmmaker Stuart Browning to inform Americans about the dangers of collectivized medicine and the benefits of free markets in health care.
The filmmaker has received no funding from the health insurance industry or the health care industry.
Transcript:
Get the movie transcript with footnotes & datasources: HTML | PDF
All insurance schemes, of course, are premised on the notion that many people pay into the “fund” that is used to pay claims that, in total, amount to less than the fund itself. Obviously, all people need health care, but not to the same degree. So, in principle, depending on how you define benefits, you can construct a viable health insurance scheme.
The problem is that, unlike, say, home fire or flood insurance, most people *will* need medical are in their lives. An insurance scheme becomes increasingly untenable if most people paying into the system are taking out more than they put in.
Another problem is that, once health care becomes politicized, people will demand that government provide them with more and more benefits, which will make the gap between what they pay into the system and what they take out even larger. This will lead to a crash in the medical industry, with worse care, longer wait times, fewer new drugs and procedures, etc. It is inevitable.
The free market, augmented by intra-family responsibility and private charity, remains the best system for allocating scare goods and services.
Just the way it is.
That says it all.
That's usually referred to as welfare, if the government provides it --- which someone else always has to pay for.
Just the way it is.
You tapdanced around a critical issue: insurance is not something you get after you have serious health issues.
I have no idea what you're talking about. The above was a statement in regards to insurance in general. I tapdanced around nothing friend.
In addition, is there something in my statement that is incorrect?
The key is will people participate voluntarily, and will they pay the premiums?
Mark
Uninsured in America: Transcript
Faye Chao (Uninsured 26-year-old): My rent currently is $475 plus utilities. In total, my cost comes out to about $530 a month.
Stuart Browning: What's your average monthly income?
Faye Chao: On average my monthly income is twenty three hundred. And it's not taxed. Sometimes, you know, it varies. I save almost a thousand dollars a month.
Stuart Browning: So why don't you have health insurance?
Faye Chao: I'm young right now and currently don't need health insurance. Probably don't want to spend $200 a month.
Stuart Browning: In this state, a 26-year-old non-smoker with no preexisting conditions can get a policy for $96 a month.
Faye Chao: It's 96 dollars a month, but that's twelve hundred dollars a year you're spending on health insurance. And honestly, I feel it's ridiculous that we live in a first world country where I have to pay for basic health care.
Stuart Browning (voice over): But, what if they get sick or injured and they don't have any savings? They know that the U.S health care system will still give them medical care.
Faye Chao: I bike everywhere in the city, so I have gotten hit by drivers twice - and one time I ended up in the hospital. No, I didn't have health insurance, but I was treated - and billed for it later.
Stuart Browning (off camera): Umm hmm. How much was the bill for? Do you remember?
Faye Chao: Honestly I don't because I didn't bother to pay for it.
SNIP
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.