Saturday, December 26, 2009

Health Care, What is the Problem?

The health care problem, exactly what is the problem? Is the problem found in the high costs of health care itself or is the problem found in the solution that we have all come to believe is the solution, health care insurance? When I hear all the horror stories in regards to this issue it is never about the high costs of health care itself. It is always about the high costs of the insurance we pay for.

When we hear the argument about those claimed as being left out of the health care system, it is never about their inability to receive health care. It is about the fact that they have no insurance to cover the costs of the care they receive. Its as if we have fallen into the mindset that we are not responsible for our own health care expenses.

So, what is the solution that Congress has come up with? Based upon the bill that passed the Senate it seems that the government wants to force everyone to buy health care insurance. They seem to think that the addition of those who do not have insurance will drive the cost of insurance down and make it affordable for everybody. I would think common sense and elementary mathematics would soon drive that notion out of a person’s head.

They would also eliminate the preexisting health problem clause in an insurance policy. That would add to the costs of insurance premiums not help lower them. We must always remember that when we buy insurance of any kind, not just health care insurance, you are buying insurance against the possibility of a future loss not a present loss. And remember I said possibility not probability or certainty of loss.

If the purpose of insurance were to pay for a present loss, no one would buy insurance until after they had suffered the loss. So, this would undermine the purpose and intent of the meaning of insurance.

So, for those who believe that health care is a right rather than a privilege and that there is a health care cost problem then let’s address the issue of the cost of health care. We have no right to health care insurance. Insurance companies are in existence for the purpose and intent of making a profit. The industry was never intended to be a charity, as some would like us to believe it should be.

As long as you approach this problem from the point of view of the cost to the patient, you are only addressing a symptom of the problem not the cause. Addressing just the symptom never solves problems. That only prolongs the problem until the cause is addressed.

These are just the foolish thoughts of one individual who believes that solutions can be found to any problem we face in this world. It only requires that minds be left open and those minds desire real solutions. We cannot allow emotions to rush us into decisions that would be disastrous for our children and grandchildren.

3 comments:

Rational Nation USA said...

I agree with your premise that a) health care is not a right, and 2) that insurance companies are in the business they are in to make a profit.

The issue, as I see it is one of making basic healthcare affordable to the minority who often for reasons not entirely thee fault are unable to purchase health insurance.

That is why I have become a proponent of the Swiss Health System. It provide basic coverage for those unable to pay the cost. It also allows for private insurers to sell a menu of healthcare insurance for those who can afford more extensive coverage up to a "guild plated" plan if you will.

This is a simplistic explanation, however it describes the basics. It allows for basic governmental plan for those who have limited means and retains a market based competitive system.

While I agree there is no right to health insurance, I believe as Thomas Paine did that basic human desire to provide foe those least able to provide for their own care.

The theory of evolution states that the strong survive and the weak shall die, ie; " the survival of the fittest." I am not sure Charles Darwin, or American Capitalists meant that to mean human souls should perish because of their inability to secure basic insurance.

I know that I would not mind paying a bit extra in taxes so my grandchild or yours would be covered if due to circumstances they were unable to afford basic coverage. It sure would be paying for the porkulus bills the congress send out yearly, and the subsidies to failing businesses, and the special interests that politicians are beholden to etc...

A socialist I am not. And I will fight for individualism and liberty till my dying breath. I just happen to agree with Thomas Paine on this issue. But don't take my word for it, take a look at all his writings. And he was a true revolutionary.

The Griper said...

i'm not against helping the weak, RN, but socialistic solutions are not the answer either. there are too many ways to go in the free market system that would be better. don't allow your emotions to limit your thoughts on the answer. we need to think the problem thru and not act rashly on this issue. it will be our children and grandkids who will suffer if we don't.

CJ said...

I completely agree that when people talk about health plans as "insurance" contracts isn't not accurate. It certainly won't make sense if the contracts are forced to insure against things that have already happened.

In Wisconsin, we have a high-risk pool for people who got sick and didn't have insurance. It's very expensive for obvious reasons. My understanding of this plan is it turns all insurance into a high-risk pool. It's not longer a contract protecting the insured against a peril.

Followers

Words of Wisdom of my visitors

Grab This Widget

Gas Buddy

Search for gas prices by US Zip Code

 

Design by Amanda @ Blogger Buster