insurance is SO capitalistic…
It came into existence as a method in the old-time shipping business to benefit the bottom line of the businessman aka insurer by offering an attractive perception — the perception of reducing risk to the insured and providing some guarantee of recompense to the provider. If this perception crumbled the insurance was essentially of no value.
Insurance must produce income by issuing policies or associated products — I got a credit card offer from my life insurance company the other day — and it must hold enough cash reserves to pay out. If it does not it is no longer economically viable as an insurance company and will either die a quick death or sneak along held together by band aids and infusions till it ends in agony … sorry, taking an analogy too far there …
Additionally, we assume (though admittedly without an overwhelming historical precedent), that it must be ethical, meaning, it pays what it presents it will pay in the event of a claim.
In short, an insurance entity must produce three things in order to exist as a reasonably well-doing, non-ripoff organization
— It must increase a perception of well being, thus freeing the insured to act
— It must bring in more than it pays out, consistently and even in the face of disaster
— It must actually provide the payouts it promises to offer
Now the question comes up: Can the government be a successful insurance provider?
It is ridiculous to propose any form of national health insurance that cannot meet the above requirements. It would cease to be insurance and exist merely as a benefit. As a benefit, it loses the innate responsibility to remain economically viable, and we must assume it will eventually deteriorate if not artificially replenished, like the national highway system.
People die for lack of health insurance/ability to pay. They suffer, mentally and physically, and they die, early.
I’m 39. I’ve had fantastic health insurance, lame and expensive health insurance, and no health insurance. I’ve severely suffered having no health insurance. I’ve avoided death by having health insurance.
How much more serious does this issue need to get?
Now, when it comes to the government getting involved, you have the interesting position that the government of a free society has significant resources.
Could we provide health insurance for everyone in the country, every year? You bet we could.
The average citizen would barely notice the pinch, compared to what they would be paying out of pocket for most private healthcare insurance.
Could we ensure (with an ‘e’) that it would meet the three criteria above?
Maybe.
Do you believe the government as a whole is meeting those three things? If you do then state-sponsored health insurance can be something you support, regardless of political affiliation.
If you do not believe that the government as a whole is meeting those three things than you might have a responsibility to be opposed to state-sponsored health insurance. You wouldn’t want a bad business in charge of your health insurance, would you?
The problem is, your personal health isn’t a capitalist venture, unless you define your health in terms of lifetime earning power. “If you meet certain criteria you get to have relief and/or live and if you don’t we’ll let you suffer and/or die” is unacceptable.
Of course there are things you can choose to do to make your health worse, much worse, like smoking (and don’t get me started on my theory that cigarettes still exist is cause the government is making out on taxes…) Doesn’t mean you’re a bad person, you’re just making a really stupid, short term decision.
But the ice cream I just ate was probably a stupid short term decision. We all do it. I’m the last person to point to my neighbor and say their short term decision making is no concern of mine — I may need that grace someday.
I don’t like the idea of being forced into a government-directed insurance along with everyone else. I don’t trust the government enough for that.
However, if every single person in America had the opportunity to be reasonably insured, we’d have a lot more total freedom to act.
Having more freedom to act will contribute to the economic lifeblood of the national community, increasing the resources available to the government, ie, paying for itself. (How many people do you know who sell themselves short economically “because I need the insurance?”)
The only question left is, will the government provide what it says it will pay out.
If they’re allowed to compete with other insurance companies, yes, I believe it will, overall, generally enough.
If there is zero competition …there is no stopgap measure to prevent it from deteriorating into a benefit. Benefits are great; benefits are important. Benefits are tied up with so much freakin’ red tape that you wonder why the heck you have been driving over this same pothole twice a day every day for four years ….
You may not have the luxury of being simply annoyed when it comes to your healthcare.
“Medicare for all who want it” makes sense (thanks, Pete, for trying.)
Anything else is going to be a sinking ship.
Photo by Stasys EIDIEJUS from FreeImages
Thanks to Britannia online for a historical summary of insurance
