Comments | jon_leonard: Recently read: Crisis of Abundance

jon_leonard

Recently read: Crisis of Abundance

Nov 07, 2009 15:27

Crisis of Abundance: Rethinking how we pay for health care, by Arnold Kling ( Read more... )

Comments 5

akiko November 8 2009, 15:39:53 UTC

Does he have any policy prescriptions for people who don't have $100 to pay the dentist, let alone $110 to pay Aetna/BCBS/Cigna?

jon_leonard November 8 2009, 19:03:09 UTC

Of course he does. In particular, that's one of the two categories of people for whom he recommends government funding ( ... )

beth_leonard November 9 2009, 05:01:02 UTC

ok, I need to make a chart:

very poor (presumably not very sick, just normal stuff we all need like vaccinations) => government funding

very sick, temporary way (premies) => private insurance

very sick, permanantly and expensively (diabetes, kidney failure) => government pool

moderately sick (carpel tunnel?, bad back?) => ??? where do those kick in? Are those "moderate" expenses like vaccines that everyone (who is not very poor) should pay for themselves? Or are those things that you get care for if your employer gives you a good cadillac health insurance plan, but you pay for out of pocket if you don't have that kind of private coverage?

I'm sure I'll read it eventually.

--Beth

(The comment has been removed)

jon_leonard November 10 2009, 06:37:25 UTC

I don't think he covered preventive care specifically, though if you compare to other kinds of insurance, it shouldn't be a huge problem. You can get discounts on things like car insurance and fire insurance for things that the insurance company thinks are risk-reducers. So I'd expect health policies to encourage preventive care to the point where it's cost-effective ( ... )

zathrus November 10 2009, 23:59:38 UTC

My MIL actually has insurance, purchased privately, that does encourage preventive care in exactly the ways you describe. Her premiums go up if she neglects her annual physical; when she was smoking, her insurance didn't cover lung-related issues, and she had to quit, and sign a statement that she had quit, and then wait a year and sign another statement that she had remained not smoking, before they would cover lung-related issues. I guarantee you that both my husband and my brother would get their physicals done on time, or at least much closer to on time, if it affected their premiums, but of course, since they are insured through their employment, it doesn't; all employees are charged the same, regardless of health-related habits. Our current insurance makes "preventive care" "free" -- i.e., no co-pay -- but they still can't offset the fact that getting Chris to the doctor means time off work and work piled up when he returns; adding some financial cost into the system would offset that greatly. (Of course, the company could ( ... )