Choice And Risk

by Dave Price on July 22, 2009

in Politics

Ace makes a great point on one of the many problems in the health care bill:

On Fox & Friends, they offered another good talking point: Currently 90% of all Americans are covered by insurance. Obama’s vaunted plan will cover, theoretically, another 7%.

So: We’re destroying the entire system to move from 90% to 97% coverage? And that 7%, of course, includes a lot of young people who think they don’t need health insurance because they’re young and healthy (and, in fact, they’re right, according to the statistics; even more right when you consider that each young person is forced to pay way too much for health care, as he subsidizes older customers).

I’m one of those people.  I don’t have health insurance now, and I haven’t ever carried it when I wasn’t working a W-2 job, because I’m generally healthy and don’t particularly want to subsidize people who are more likely to require medical care. It’s possible, of course, I could regret this decision due to circumstances beyond my control, but I’d prefer to put that money into investments and play the odds by making an effort to stay healthy via exercise and supplements and generally engaging in low-risk behavior.

Let’s take a closer look at the numbers on that.  The sum of the time I’ve been without insurance is  about four years. I think the average premium for health care insurance for someone in my position has been around $300/month over the last four years (I’ll use the last four years for simplicity, although the period I wasn’t covered is actually spread over a longer period).  That’s about $3,600 a year (we’ll conservatively ignore deductibles, too, which reduce the benefit).  In that period I had essentially no medical costs, so at the moment I’m ahead about $16,000 if we discount at 7%.

So in answer to the inevitable “But what if you get sick or need medical care tomorrow?”  —  as long as it costs less than $16,000, I’ll still be ahead.  That’s not a sure thing, but the odds are in my favor, and the amount I’ve saved gets bigger every year.  (If I didn’t have that money available, of course, the benefit of insurance would be somewhat greater as I might face a situation in which I could not afford necessary care or could be forced to declare bankruptcy, but then that’s the benefit of saving.)

Of course, the reason we pay for insurance is to avoid having to take this gamble, but the price they’re asking is too high. The benefit of being insured is not commensurate with the cost for someone young and healthy and low-risk if they have to subsidize others.  Now, if someone came along with a policy priced for people who are young and healthy and low-risk, I would take it, because it would be a lot cheaper, but I’m not sure that’s even legal.

Here’s where things gets both scary and infuriating.  Under the health-care proposal currently being considered, I won’t have this choice anymore.  It will essentially be illegal to not carry health insurance, and I will be fined thousands of dollars a year if I continue to do what I’m currently doing.   And the really galling part of this is I’m one of those “uninsured” people they claim to be helping.

{ 1 trackback }

The seven percent solution | Likelihood of Success
July 23, 2009 at 5:40 pm

{ 60 comments }

1 CosmicConservative July 23, 2009 at 11:28 am

Kevin:

See my comment above yours, Aziz has decided you have a MORAL IMPERATIVE to agree with him, and if you don’t, you are morally deficient.

This is the typical approach of Leftists when advancing their ideology.

To put it bluntly, in Aziz’s world (and others like him) it is OK to COMPEL you to do the things THEY think are right. And if you disagree, you are just a whining neanderthal.

2 Hank Barnes July 23, 2009 at 12:10 pm

Great discussion!!

To throw another angle at the issue:

According to Lazarou in JAMA (Journal of American Medical Association), a large meta-analysis, “proper” use of prescription drugs CAUSE about 106,000 deaths each year in hospitals.

Adding the true, but unfortunate, observations of Dr. Starfield of Johns-Hopkins (JAMA, 2000: 284:483- 485), who calculates the iatrogenic deaths each year in the USA as follows:

* 12,000 deaths/year from unnecessary surgery

* 7,000 deaths/year from medication errors

* 20,000 deaths/year from other errors in hospitals

* 80,000 deaths/year from infections acquired from hospital staff or patients

This is about 225,000 deaths/year in the US from doctors and hospitals. This is only outnumbered by cancer and heart disease.

Maybe, the folks who aren’t insured are better off!

–HBarnes

3 Dave Price July 23, 2009 at 1:53 pm

It’s perfectly wonderful, Aziz, if you want to spend your own money being your brother’s keeper. Fine. Go for it. If you donate your whole income, I will applaud your nobility and caring nature.

But your caring stops being noble when you want to seize and spend MY money. This is the false nobility of the leftist: “I care about the poor, and I am morally superior because I am forcing everyone else to help them.”

4 TexasAg03 July 23, 2009 at 2:26 pm

They may negotiate a payment plan, but you will not pay less with no insurance. In fact, you will probably pay more.

Absolutely untrue. I know several people without insurance (by choice) and they always get SUBSTANTIAL discounts when they negotiate. The hospital and doctors do not have to deal with the insurance bureaucracy, so it is a good deal for them to discount the services.

Also, the Republicans DO have alternatives on the table – it’s just that the MSM wouldn’t dare let this out.

http://is.gd/1JaQd

And a response to the “some want to do nothing” meme:

http://is.gd/1JaRM

5 CosmicConservative July 23, 2009 at 2:42 pm

Dave:

You have a flaw in your criticism of Aziz, and it is a flaw which essentially concedes the key point to the Leftist. You say:

This is the false nobility of the leftist: “I care about the poor, and I am morally superior because I am forcing everyone else to help them.”

The falseness of this statement is not just that they are morally superior, but that their “solution” ACTUALLY HELPS THE POOR.

I would hope that the failure of the Great Society had proven that Leftist wealth redistribution efforts simply do NOT WORK. Not only will Aziz force you to do something, but he will force you to do something that does not ACTUALLY HELP THE POOR.

Once health care is rationed, the poor will (as always) be the ones who find it hardest to get new hips, new hearts and new leases on life, while the politically connected will find it easiest.

6 Hank Barnes July 23, 2009 at 3:17 pm

This is the false nobility of the leftist: “I care about the poor, and I am morally superior because I am forcing everyone else to help them.”

Translation: I will give you the shirt of someone else’s back!

HB

7 Hank Barnes July 23, 2009 at 3:25 pm

Harry Reid has sensibly said this thing needs to slow down a bit — no vote until the Fall.

A good responsible move.

–HB

8 greenwell July 23, 2009 at 3:52 pm

I know that anecdote does not equal data, but here goes anyway…

I have been working in the health care industry since 1980. That’s 29 years. I work for a very large medical device vendor so I get to see the operating practices of a lot of both public and private institutions and health care providers.

In every single one of those institutions and providers – from the big university medical centers down to the free-standing, private imaging centers – they are more than willing to negotiate their fees when a patient is paying out-of-pocket. (ie has no insurance) Indeed, most of them actually have a standing discount for no-insurance patients that is substantially lower than the published procedure price.

I have also seen the effects that various government policies have had on costs over those years. And in almost every case, the intervening policy has had the opposite effect of what was stipulated when the policy was put into effect.

9 CosmicConservative July 23, 2009 at 4:11 pm

Greenwell:

You say:

“I have also seen the effects that various government policies have had on costs over those years. And in almost every case, the intervening policy has had the opposite effect of what was stipulated when the policy was put into effect.”

This is in large part due to the fundamental difference between conservative and liberal approaches to problems. Paramount among those differences is the tendency for liberals to discount the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Things cost more than liberals think because they always leave out things they don’t want to confront, and because they refuse to acknowledge the effect of feedback mechanisms that come into play and change the environment as soon as the policy is implemented.

This is a LARGE reason that conservatives are suspicious of government solutions to things, we EXPECT them to have unintended consequences, and by and large they are virtually always NEGATIVE ones.

10 Mc Kiernan July 23, 2009 at 7:40 pm

“still here? then welcome to The Tragedy of the Commons. You pay taxes, they may be used in ways you dont approve of. label it tyranny if you want, but thats just

your brute ignorance of the rights-vs-responsibility sacred contract a democratic state makes with its citizens.”

How do you come up with this stuff, aziz ?

Comments on this entry are closed.

traffic stats