Skip to main content

Diigo Home

Public option: Treatment worse than the disease - CNN.com - The Diigo Meta page

www.cnn.com/...index.html - Cached - Annotated View

Eric Hanneken's personal annotations on this page

ehanneken
Ehanneken bookmarked on 2009-11-05 health insurance egalitarianism politics Jeffrey Miron

Jeffrey Miron strikes at the root of the arguments for government involvement in health insurance. Being poor sucks. Some people, <em>by accident of birth</em>, have higher costs of living or lower income than other people. Hardcore egalitarian statists believe the government should compensate the unfortunate at the expense of the fortunate, but they should recognize that not everyone agrees with their notion of fairness, and that their approach would degrade everyone's standards of living.

  • Government should not subsidize health insurance -- for the uninsured, the poor, the elderly or anyone else -- or regulate health insurance markets.
  • Subsidizing health insurance means that patients and doctors are insulated from the costs of health care, so they utilize too much -- often in the form of unnecessary tests or medical procedures whose value hasn't been proven. This excess demand, along with technological progress, means rapidly growing deficits, so governments limit reimbursements to health providers or ration care. This kills innovation and creates its own inequities. The taxes necessary to fund subsidies are a drag on economic growth.
  • If society wants everyone to have health insurance, the obvious approach is to give the poor enough money so that individuals can purchase on their own. Just because people want government to help the poor doesn't require it to pay for specific kinds of goods.

  • the question is whether society should compensate those who face higher prices because of their health status?

    The answer is no. Advocates for such compensation would suggest that it is basic fairness for society to insure people against the bad luck of being born with lousy genes. Many differences in health status, however, arise from behavior

  • In addition, it is logical for society to treat the differences in financial well-being due to health in the same way it treats differences due to IQ, athletic ability, race, country of origin, family background, and so on. These and other factors mean that some people, through no fault of their own, face hard financial circumstances, whether because of their ability to earn income or because of the higher prices they face for certain goods, such as health insurance.

This link has been bookmarked by 4 people . It was first bookmarked on 30 Oct 2009, by someone privately.

  • 07 Nov 09
    rhanneken
    Russell Hanneken

    health care public option Jeffrey Alan Miron

  • 05 Nov 09
    ehanneken
    Eric Hanneken

    Jeffrey Miron strikes at the root of the arguments for government involvement in health insurance. Being poor sucks. Some people, <em>by accident of birth</em>, have higher costs of living or lower income than other people. Hardcore egalitarian statists believe the government should compensate the unfortunate at the expense of the fortunate, but they should recognize that not everyone agrees with their notion of fairness, and that their approach would degrade everyone's standards of living.

    health insurance egalitarianism politics Jeffrey Miron

    • Government should not subsidize health insurance -- for the uninsured, the poor, the elderly or anyone else -- or regulate health insurance markets.
    • Subsidizing health insurance means that patients and doctors are insulated from the costs of health care, so they utilize too much -- often in the form of unnecessary tests or medical procedures whose value hasn't been proven. This excess demand, along with technological progress, means rapidly growing deficits, so governments limit reimbursements to health providers or ration care. This kills innovation and creates its own inequities. The taxes necessary to fund subsidies are a drag on economic growth.
    • 3 more annotations...
  • 02 Nov 09
    djeaton3162
    Daniel Eaton

    "The final bill will likely include a mandate that most Americans buy health insurance, subsidies for the purchase of insurance and bans on denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions.

    The bill may also include a "public option," government insurance that would compete with private insurance.

    The underlying presumption behind this legislation is that government health insurance should be expanded to cover the uninsured.

    This presumption is wrong. Government should not subsidize health insurance -- for the uninsured, the poor, the elderly or anyone else -- or regulate health insurance markets. Here's why.

    Subsidizing health insurance means that patients and doctors are insulated from the costs of health care, so they utilize too much -- often in the form of unnecessary tests or medical procedures whose value hasn't been proven. This excess demand, along with technological progress, means rapidly growing deficits, so governments limit reimbursements to health providers or ration care. This kills innovation and creates its own inequities. The taxes necessary to fund subsidies are a drag on economic growth."

    healthcare

    • Subsidizing health insurance means that patients and doctors are insulated from the costs of health care, so they utilize too much -- often in the form of unnecessary tests or medical procedures whose value hasn't been proven.