I’d be interested in your specific ideas about politically feasible ways to address your concerns, perhaps in the context of current health reform legislation. Like it or not, that’s what’s on the table. That’s where you and I can make a mark, if anywhere.

I do not think inusrance is the answer to health care reform. At least many of our legislators are now calling it what it really is – Insurance Reform. however, they are not reforming the insurance systems of the United States.
We have over 50 different governing bodies to oversee insurance. Insurance companies simply cannot provide affordable health insurance in many states. Couple that with a requirement that insurance companies cannot charge a risk premium and you have the makings of a disaster; We must all suffer with premiums based on the highest common denominator.

Your wrote: “low-income people with chronic health conditions or disabilities can have outrageously high uninsurance rates, nearly 50% if they live in the south and do not qualify for public health programs.” I would tend to disagree with this assessment from a pragmatic stance if not official. People with disabilities do have coverage available to them as well as those who chose to go receive care and then not pay their bill. I came off as sounding mean-spirited when I said they were low-producing members of society. In reality, if they are unable to be productive because of their illness or disability then my description, although not politically correct, is not an incorrect one. We constantly support these folks when they are unable to pay their bill. However, it is the institution, the States and the Federal government that pick up the tab because it is not an official program to subsidize the low income individuals.

The Plans being considered would require everyone to have Health Insurance and the government would subsidize those who could not afford it. This officially creates a program for paying for those who cannot afford it by subsidizing the insurance plan. At the same time it shifts those costs for the low-income to the Insurance companies and creates a hidden tax on those not being subsidized.
It would be more honest to increase the income taxes by 50% and create a program to pay for those who could not pay their medical bills.

All of this will do nothing to lower the cost of medical care in the United States.

I say we need to reform health insurance so the insurance companies can build larger pools of individuals which will lower the cost to all.

Honestly create a program to reimburse those medical providers who are unable to collect their fees.

Encourage individuals to purchase insurance

Every time you create a subsidy you create an artificial floor above which the affected providers will set their rates. If no one can afford a doctor at $100 per hour then the doctor reduces his rates or goes out of business. If you say you will subsidize the rate at 50% the doctor can raise his rates to $150 and consider the extra $50 a fee for dealing with a bureaucracy. Why should he reduce his rates or keep them the same?

I would love to have everything I wanted for free but that is not reality. The Plans being discussed do not consider the reality of human interaction (economics) in the face of scarcity. Since the Plans will do more harm than good I feel they are not appropriate and tugging at my heartstrings by saying we need to buy insurance for handicapped and disabled individuals is simply not supported with real analysis.

I do, however, apologize if I sound like I hate people and we need to invoke Hitler and eliminate non-productive members of society. This is neither how I believe nor how I wish the discussion to evolve.

If you, he, or anyone else wishes to discuss how to provide insurance and health care to individuals in great need and low income, I welcome it here. If you wish to discuss other health care topics I likely have a thread of relevance in which to do so.

(I’m not trying to be difficult. Look at it from my perspective for a moment. Entertaining topics of all sorts on all threads makes for a disorganized blog and an exhausted administrator. It isn’t good for readers or me.)

There is a fundamental debate going on right now about who is responsible for helping others. Is helping others a requirement of our society? Or is it something we get to choose to do? Are we going to force all Americans to contribute to a particular charity? Is it limited to healthcare? Or does it extend to housing and food as well?

When we provide too much gov’t support, some people take less responsibility for themselves. For instance, why is it that the American savings rate has consistently declined over the last 50 years? Could it be that Social Security provides a safety net such that Americans don’t feel the need to save? China has no such program, and they are great savers.

Every time we create a new entitlement (SS, Medicare, now general Healthcare) we lock down the choices of future generations. Entitlements are never retracted – people come to depend on them and you simply can’t take it away. So we should not take on such complex decisions without thinking about the long term.

But there are only a couple things we know about the long term:
a) Health care costs will continue to skyrocket
b) There is no plan in place to curb (permanently) healthcare costs

Given that, it is just a matter of time before we can’t pay for the program. Why would we put this burden on our children? Give our children the choice for how to evolve this country. If you lock them into funding this entitlement program, you’re taking away their freedom.

Why can’t we figure out how to curb costs FIRST and then figure out the entitlement program? Why do we have to first lock ourselves into a program which we know will drive us to bankruptcy? How will America compete globally when our people are taxed disproportionately while other countries do not do this?

Freedom includes the freedom to fail. Let people fail. It’s okay. When you take away freedom to fail, you incidentally take away the freedom to succeed. That’s not where we want to be.

The genuine answers are far too complex to address in one blog comment, or even one post. But they are out there. Regular reading of credible sources can illuminate the topic. In a week or so I will provide a complete list of all my regular news and information sources for the benefit of readers.

Returning to the study that this post summarized, there is a large class of individuals without insurance and with disabilities and health issues beyond their control. Is it the duty of our society to care for them? That’s for each of us to decide.

What exactly is the proportion of people who are uninsured, as I am, who feel a need to run to the doctor every week? How many of those people are productive members of our society? How many of those people choose to live a lifestyle that avoids health problems such as drinking and smoking? How much of the statistics are an actual problem and how much is simply wanting free healthcare?

Insurance blinds individuals to the true cost of what they are receiving. Lower income individuals often have many health problems due to their own life choices. In other words the only benefit will come from a major restructure of the individual’s life. unless Medical care will do that these will be cost increases and not one efficiency gained.

There is nothing in the current prograqm that will assist working individuals and in fact the proposal will result in a vast reduction in their income and quality of life. Even as you move up the income ladder you will take a while to get to a point where the cost of medical insurance is not an issue. The cost is just too high.

Add in provisions such as removing any opportunity to charge a risk premium and the cost for all persons will rise. It has been reported it will rise an average of $600 and that includes major population States such as California and New York. Smaller markets will rise even more.

There are many things I would like free and healthcare is one of them. However, is it the responsibility of our government to force all Americans to purchase inefficient, expensive health insurance? What are the unintended consequenses of trying to be nice?