5 ms·

Risk pooling is supposed to happen at the insurance company level, not at, e.g., the corporate level. i.e. the insurance company is pooling risk across a lot of

by javert 14y ago

Risk pooling is supposed to happen at the insurance company level, not at, e.g., the corporate level. i.e. the insurance company is pooling risk across a lot of individual clients. That this only sort of happens now is an offshoot of the regulatory system. Of course, a large company will always be able to negotiate slightly better rates. In a free market, whenever it is financially rational to insure someone, it would happen. So, someone probably couldn't get insurace that covers their preexisting condition (which wouldn't be fair to the insurer), but they could get coverage for other things. And that's the way it should be. Nobody should force someone else to take care of them. People are not owed anything by the universe.

_delirium 14y ago
Ah, well that's where we disagree. I can't control what genes I'm born with, and I don't think there's anything wrong with socializing those risks across the population. Let's say there's a 1% risk of me being born with some condition. I think it's perfectly fair for me to pay 1% of the cost of treating that condition, whether I'm born with it or not. I don't see why I should pay 100% the cost if I get unlucky in the genetic lottery, or 0% if I get lucky. That's just upping the ante on a bet I wasn't even around to make. And that's the kind of pooling insurance usually does, but the mechanics of this particular risk are very hard for insurance to pool, because it happens to take place before I'm sentient enough to purchase insurance, unlike a tree falling on my house. If anything, it strikes me as exceptionally petty and greedy for people who have the misfortune not to need to undergo surgery for a congenital heart disease to be angry about having to pay for their 1/risk chance of it. I mean, I'm not even arguing anything particularly leftist here: F.A. Hayek made basically this argument.
- javert 14y ago
  I can't control what genes I'm born with, and I don't think there's anything wrong with socializing those risks across the population. What's wrong with it is that you're initiating force against me, and making my life manifestly worse. I mean, as someone who can pay for my own healthcare, this is what I get out of socialized medicine in the US: (1) Less money to spend on my own healthcare issues (2) Regulations that prevent my doctors from taking care of me in the best possible way (3) Regulations that prevent me from getting the best medicine (4) Anything medical is done in an extremely expensive and wasteful way That's what you're doing to me, in order to instill your notion of what is "perfectly fair." The U.S. medical system does not work effectively for the same reasons that the Soviet economy did not. It's likely only going to keep getting worse with Obamacare.
  - gtaylor 14y ago
    You know, these posts sound a lot like "I've got mine, screw you." Am I rare in that I wouldn't mind paying a little more if it'd mean that the country would be legitimately happier/healthier? Whether that be socialized healthcare, single-payer, or any combination.
  - redler 14y ago
    You cover a lot of ground here -- socialized medicine, Obama, government regulation, "initiation of force", the fall of the Soviet Union. But just to select one: "...as someone who can pay for my own healthcare..." What should be done about the people who cannot? Your profile reveals that you're an Ayn Rand fan; I don't believe Rand provided an answer to this question, other than to posit that harnessing the collective resources of society to address it, in any way, destroys essential freedom. Do you propose that "The Virtue of Selfishness" would be an effective and moral organizing principle for modern society?
  - SoftwareMaven 14y ago
    as someone who can pay for my own healthcare Then just do it. It is unfortunate that Obamacare is forcing you to get insurance, but I'm sure you can find a medical plan with a ridiculously high deductible (specifically for people who are wealthy[1]) that will cost you next to nothing[2] and, similar to life insurance, protect you and your assets if something catastrophic happens. 1. I'm making no judgement about whether you are wealthy or just choose to pursue no healthcare. 2. Assuming they are still available next year. http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/07/13/obamacare-could-kill-one-type-of-cheap-health-insurance/ http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/07/13/obamacare-could-kill-...
CountSessine 14y ago
In a free market, whenever it is financially rational to insure someone, it would happen. Which is why healthcare-as-insurance is so perverse. So, someone probably couldn't get insurace that covers their preexisting condition (which wouldn't be fair to the insurer), but they could get coverage for other things. Would you perhaps like to volunteer at a hospital some time? Maybe you could explain objectivist principles to parents with children born with 'pre-existing conditions' like spina bifida or taysach's syndrome? Explain that they'll have to deal with a child's debilitating illness without financial aid? Maybe you could read Atlas Shrugged during storytime at a children's cancer ward? You could explain to all of those little 'Takers' how unfair their treatment is to their parent's insurance companies?
- javert 14y ago
  If you want to make an intellectual point, don't say something mocking and hyperbolic. Be honest about what you really believe. Be willing to defend it. Say, "I demand that you practice altruism. I am going to force you to be good, by my definition of good, at the point of a gun." I would want to help someone with spina bifida, but I would not want to do it because you force me to at gunpoint, while simultaneously creating a system where I myself can't get the healthcare I can actually pay for.
SoftwareMaven 14y ago
Having been denied insurance because of a procedure that I underwent to make me considerably more healthy, I call bullshit. How do you "not cover" the result of a procedure that impacted every aspect of my life while covering everything else? Naked capitalism and healthcare can't work together (and this coming from somebody who strongly believes the government has way too many fingers in way too many pies). The priorities are too far out of whack; but that doesn't mean capitalism shouldn't have a significant role to play. I do think government regulation (in particular, the tax benefit for companies providing insurance) have made the situation far worse than it needs to be. I talked to an insurance broker after the Obamacare vote. He told me every insurance company in my state was dropping policies for 19 year olds, since they had no say who they covered. Talk about incentivizing good behavior... In the end, it's an incredibly complex problem that should not be handled in at the Federal level, if for no other reason than there are too many competing needs.
- javert 14y ago
  I do think government regulation (in particular, the tax benefit for companies providing insurance) have made the situation far worse than it needs to be. In the end, it's an incredibly complex problem that should not be handled in at the Federal level Then you are arguing on the wrong side. You are like the Republican Party. You argue that one thing is practical, but another thing is moral. You cede the moral high ground to the other party. Ironic, since the moral high ground ought to be yours. How do you "not cover" the result of a procedure that impacted every aspect of my life while covering everything else If it's that important, why don't you just pay for it? Why do you point a gun at me and force me to pay for your procedure? If our medical system were free, it would be as efficient as the veterinary system, and the cost reduction would be commensurate. So, you see, the moral is the practical. Naked capitalism and healthcare can't work together Neither can capitalism and clothing, consumer electronics, toothpaste, food, transportation. I mean, everywhere we have tried capitalism, it has failed. Everywhere we have tried socialization and regulation, it has worked. Why don't we apply the model of the Soviet Union to our healthcare system? That is obviously a pro-healthy choice. </friendly_sarcasm>
  - 14y ago
quasque 14y ago
When I read things like this, it makes me so glad I live in the UK and don't have to endure any of this free market bullshit when it comes to health. The system you describe is just so chillingly brutal and callous.
- javert 14y ago
  No, the system you describe is chillingly brutal and callous. It is your system that is done at the point of a gun, not mine.
  - quasque 14y ago
    I don't think one could conceive a metaphor more archetypal of the US than "done at the point of a gun" -- but what do you mean by that, in terms of the UK health system?
    - javert 14y ago
      "Done at the point of a gun" means that you're being forced to do it. If you say "no," they take what they want anyway, and lock you up.
      - quasque 14y ago
        Doing what? Being forced to pay taxes? That happens in every country and is surely a more general complaint, if it is indeed one at all.
        purplelobster 14y ago
        Don't bother, libertarianism is like a religion to these people.
- qohen 14y ago
  Unlike the UK's ever-so-compassionate National Health Service: "Hospitals Letting Patients Die to Save Money" [0] "Top doctor's chilling claim: The NHS kills off 130,000 elderly patients every year" [1] "I wanted to burn down the hospital that let my husband die like a battery hen: MP's heartbreaking account of NHS neglect" [2] Of course, unlike the wicked free market, the NHS would never put financial considerations ahead of providing care: "Nine out of 10 NHS Trusts are 'rationing operations' " [3] And, what wonderful care the NHS provides: "NHS death rates four times higher than US" [4] And, it's great how the NHS protects patient data: "NHS lost track of 1.8m patient records in a year with sensitive information found in public bin and for sale on the internet" [5] And there is so much more that could be said... [6]. [0] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9385674/Hospitals-letting-patients-die-to-save-money.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9385674/Hospita... [1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161869/Top-doctors-chilling-claim-The-NHS-kills-130-000-elderly-patients-year.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161869/Top-doctors-... [2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2244912/Ann-Clwyd-MPs-heartbreaking-account-NHS-neglect-husband-Owen-Roberts.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2244912/Ann-Clwyd-MP... [3] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2161489/Nine-10-NHS-Trusts-rationing-operations.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2161489/Nine-10-NH... [4] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-195277/NHS-death-rates-times-higher-US.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-195277/NHS-death-r... [5] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2224580/NHS-lost-track-1-8m-patient-records-year-sensitive-information-public-bus-sale-internet.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2224580/NHS-lost-t... [6] https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Adailymail.co.uk+NHS https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Adailymail.co.uk+NHS

by javert 14y ago

_delirium 14y ago

Ah, well that's where we disagree. I can't control what genes I'm born with, and I don't think there's anything wrong with socializing those risks across the population. Let's say there's a 1% risk of me being born with some condition. I think it's perfectly fair for me to pay 1% of the cost of treating that condition, whether I'm born with it or not. I don't see why I should pay 100% the cost if I get unlucky in the genetic lottery, or 0% if I get lucky. That's just upping the ante on a bet I wasn't even around to make. And that's the kind of pooling insurance usually does, but the mechanics of this particular risk are very hard for insurance to pool, because it happens to take place before I'm sentient enough to purchase insurance, unlike a tree falling on my house. If anything, it strikes me as exceptionally petty and greedy for people who have the misfortune not to need to undergo surgery for a congenital heart disease to be angry about having to pay for their 1/risk chance of it. I mean, I'm not even arguing anything particularly leftist here: F.A. Hayek made basically this argument.

javert 14y ago
I can't control what genes I'm born with, and I don't think there's anything wrong with socializing those risks across the population. What's wrong with it is that you're initiating force against me, and making my life manifestly worse. I mean, as someone who can pay for my own healthcare, this is what I get out of socialized medicine in the US: (1) Less money to spend on my own healthcare issues (2) Regulations that prevent my doctors from taking care of me in the best possible way (3) Regulations that prevent me from getting the best medicine (4) Anything medical is done in an extremely expensive and wasteful way That's what you're doing to me, in order to instill your notion of what is "perfectly fair." The U.S. medical system does not work effectively for the same reasons that the Soviet economy did not. It's likely only going to keep getting worse with Obamacare.
- gtaylor 14y ago
  You know, these posts sound a lot like "I've got mine, screw you." Am I rare in that I wouldn't mind paying a little more if it'd mean that the country would be legitimately happier/healthier? Whether that be socialized healthcare, single-payer, or any combination.
- redler 14y ago
  You cover a lot of ground here -- socialized medicine, Obama, government regulation, "initiation of force", the fall of the Soviet Union. But just to select one: "...as someone who can pay for my own healthcare..." What should be done about the people who cannot? Your profile reveals that you're an Ayn Rand fan; I don't believe Rand provided an answer to this question, other than to posit that harnessing the collective resources of society to address it, in any way, destroys essential freedom. Do you propose that "The Virtue of Selfishness" would be an effective and moral organizing principle for modern society?
- SoftwareMaven 14y ago
  as someone who can pay for my own healthcare Then just do it. It is unfortunate that Obamacare is forcing you to get insurance, but I'm sure you can find a medical plan with a ridiculously high deductible (specifically for people who are wealthy[1]) that will cost you next to nothing[2] and, similar to life insurance, protect you and your assets if something catastrophic happens. 1. I'm making no judgement about whether you are wealthy or just choose to pursue no healthcare. 2. Assuming they are still available next year. http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/07/13/obamacare-could-kill-one-type-of-cheap-health-insurance/ http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/07/13/obamacare-could-kill-...

CountSessine 14y ago

In a free market, whenever it is financially rational to insure someone, it would happen. Which is why healthcare-as-insurance is so perverse. So, someone probably couldn't get insurace that covers their preexisting condition (which wouldn't be fair to the insurer), but they could get coverage for other things. Would you perhaps like to volunteer at a hospital some time? Maybe you could explain objectivist principles to parents with children born with 'pre-existing conditions' like spina bifida or taysach's syndrome? Explain that they'll have to deal with a child's debilitating illness without financial aid? Maybe you could read Atlas Shrugged during storytime at a children's cancer ward? You could explain to all of those little 'Takers' how unfair their treatment is to their parent's insurance companies?

javert 14y ago
If you want to make an intellectual point, don't say something mocking and hyperbolic. Be honest about what you really believe. Be willing to defend it. Say, "I demand that you practice altruism. I am going to force you to be good, by my definition of good, at the point of a gun." I would want to help someone with spina bifida, but I would not want to do it because you force me to at gunpoint, while simultaneously creating a system where I myself can't get the healthcare I can actually pay for.

SoftwareMaven 14y ago

Having been denied insurance because of a procedure that I underwent to make me considerably more healthy, I call bullshit. How do you "not cover" the result of a procedure that impacted every aspect of my life while covering everything else? Naked capitalism and healthcare can't work together (and this coming from somebody who strongly believes the government has way too many fingers in way too many pies). The priorities are too far out of whack; but that doesn't mean capitalism shouldn't have a significant role to play. I do think government regulation (in particular, the tax benefit for companies providing insurance) have made the situation far worse than it needs to be. I talked to an insurance broker after the Obamacare vote. He told me every insurance company in my state was dropping policies for 19 year olds, since they had no say who they covered. Talk about incentivizing good behavior... In the end, it's an incredibly complex problem that should not be handled in at the Federal level, if for no other reason than there are too many competing needs.

javert 14y ago
I do think government regulation (in particular, the tax benefit for companies providing insurance) have made the situation far worse than it needs to be. In the end, it's an incredibly complex problem that should not be handled in at the Federal level Then you are arguing on the wrong side. You are like the Republican Party. You argue that one thing is practical, but another thing is moral. You cede the moral high ground to the other party. Ironic, since the moral high ground ought to be yours. How do you "not cover" the result of a procedure that impacted every aspect of my life while covering everything else If it's that important, why don't you just pay for it? Why do you point a gun at me and force me to pay for your procedure? If our medical system were free, it would be as efficient as the veterinary system, and the cost reduction would be commensurate. So, you see, the moral is the practical. Naked capitalism and healthcare can't work together Neither can capitalism and clothing, consumer electronics, toothpaste, food, transportation. I mean, everywhere we have tried capitalism, it has failed. Everywhere we have tried socialization and regulation, it has worked. Why don't we apply the model of the Soviet Union to our healthcare system? That is obviously a pro-healthy choice. </friendly_sarcasm>
- 14y ago

quasque 14y ago

When I read things like this, it makes me so glad I live in the UK and don't have to endure any of this free market bullshit when it comes to health. The system you describe is just so chillingly brutal and callous.

javert 14y ago
No, the system you describe is chillingly brutal and callous. It is your system that is done at the point of a gun, not mine.
- quasque 14y ago
  I don't think one could conceive a metaphor more archetypal of the US than "done at the point of a gun" -- but what do you mean by that, in terms of the UK health system?
  - javert 14y ago
    "Done at the point of a gun" means that you're being forced to do it. If you say "no," they take what they want anyway, and lock you up.
    - quasque 14y ago
      Doing what? Being forced to pay taxes? That happens in every country and is surely a more general complaint, if it is indeed one at all.
      - purplelobster 14y ago
        Don't bother, libertarianism is like a religion to these people.
qohen 14y ago
Unlike the UK's ever-so-compassionate National Health Service: "Hospitals Letting Patients Die to Save Money" [0] "Top doctor's chilling claim: The NHS kills off 130,000 elderly patients every year" [1] "I wanted to burn down the hospital that let my husband die like a battery hen: MP's heartbreaking account of NHS neglect" [2] Of course, unlike the wicked free market, the NHS would never put financial considerations ahead of providing care: "Nine out of 10 NHS Trusts are 'rationing operations' " [3] And, what wonderful care the NHS provides: "NHS death rates four times higher than US" [4] And, it's great how the NHS protects patient data: "NHS lost track of 1.8m patient records in a year with sensitive information found in public bin and for sale on the internet" [5] And there is so much more that could be said... [6]. [0] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9385674/Hospitals-letting-patients-die-to-save-money.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9385674/Hospita... [1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161869/Top-doctors-chilling-claim-The-NHS-kills-130-000-elderly-patients-year.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161869/Top-doctors-... [2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2244912/Ann-Clwyd-MPs-heartbreaking-account-NHS-neglect-husband-Owen-Roberts.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2244912/Ann-Clwyd-MP... [3] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2161489/Nine-10-NHS-Trusts-rationing-operations.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2161489/Nine-10-NH... [4] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-195277/NHS-death-rates-times-higher-US.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-195277/NHS-death-r... [5] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2224580/NHS-lost-track-1-8m-patient-records-year-sensitive-information-public-bus-sale-internet.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2224580/NHS-lost-t... [6] https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Adailymail.co.uk+NHS https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Adailymail.co.uk+NHS