Recommendation #1 from the Zaniya Project Task Force final report (p.6) calls for expanding the state risk pool to cover over 5,200 South Dakotans whom insurers won't touch because of pre-existing conditions (oh yeah, thanks for caring, free market). Sounds like a great idea. Practically speaking, though, can those folks whom insurance companies currently won't help afford even the high-risk pool? The current state risk pool caps premiums at "150% of the average market premium for comparable coverage" (p. 6). 150% of a high premium is a really high premium. How many folks with pre-existing conditions have already had their finances wiped out by medical bills? Sure, at least the possibility of coverage is better than none, but we'll need to see some numbers on how many of those 5,200 folks targeted by this program will actually be able to buy into it.
Funny -- problems like this don't come up with a single-payer, not-for-profit plan. Instead of letting insurance companies make an even larger profit off unfortunate people, maybe we should focus our resources on actually treating and curing disease and injury.
"(oh yeah, thanks for caring, free market)"
ReplyDeleteIs it really that hard to understand the difference between a for-profit business and a charity?
If insurance companies were to cover pre-existing conditions, then their premiums would go even higher. Cory wants lower premiums and more coverage... and he has a math degree, folks.
More coverage, lower costs, better results -- we've done the math here before. Trust the math major. Or, trust his Lutheran theologian wife, who thinks single-payer not-for-profit health care is not only practical but moral.
ReplyDeleteThorough readers will follow Cory's link and see the fallacy wherein he calculates the cost of universal health care based on the Medicare withholding for his personal income level.
ReplyDeleteBut also, while Cory talks about the numbers being all on his side, he ignores evidence that I have shared, twice, that the savings have already been determined to be insignificant, and certainly not worth the sacrifices in quality.
Colorado had a Zaniya-like task force and they were considering 4 different health care reform options. A consulting group hired by the force determined that only one of those would have saved Coloradans money: the single-payer plan... and it only saves 4.7 percent.
But... this savings comes only by "dramatic compromises in the breadth and quality of care."
...
There are better ways to handle health care, Cory. You still haven't given consideration to any of my three ideas:
1) Government regulates price, but private insurance still does the paying. (Regulating the procedure costs is all that is needed to bring health care back to the affordable realm.)
2) Government makes a voluntary health plan and competes with private insurance companies. (If a government-run program truly is more efficient, then it can win covered lives by competition, not coercion.)
or
3) A universal health care plan funded solely by a sales tax that exempts basics, and over-taxes unhealthy choices. (Buying cigarettes, whiskey, and French fries leads directly to health problems, so part of the sale of those items should put money away to pay for the resulting care.)
And as for Luther's theology, I hadn't realized that he now espoused the coercion of the Christian and Babylonian captivity. I love Erin as much as it is Platonically possible, but I will not applaud the idea of using law and force to tell me what to buy with my money. (Especially when it's impractical, as our Coloradoan friends have determined.) That, my friends, would be tyranny.