Insight, analysis & opinion from Joe Paduda
Perhaps the most puzzling condemnation of universal coverage is the contention that “A mandate is not necessary as the free market will solve the problem”.
Proponents of the free market argue that the problem is today’s market is not “free”, but rather over-regulated. And once we completely de-regulate the insurance market, the Invisible Hand will produce products and services that will provide coverage for a lot more folks.
Today we’ll look at two closely related concerns about universal coverage – the claim that it will give government too much power and is a devastating blow to personal liberty.
Unlike most of the other arguments against UC, these are more philosophical than factual. And reasonable people can disagree. And do.
The regulators in NY have decided that drugs for work comp claims will be reimbursed at the Medicaid fee schedule plus a dispensing fee.
That is a huge change from the prior reimbursement level of usual and customary, which in the Rx world is defined as the actual cash price in that pharmacy for that drug on that day.
Here’s the legal language.
Jay at Colorado Health Insurance Insider hosts this fortnight’s edition of HWR. Jay leads with Sicko-related posts, and does an admirable job.
Today we’re examining the claim that “Universal coverage won’t help solve the health care crisis”. There are two parts to this statement; first, does a ‘crisis’ exist, and second, why would universal coverage fail to address one or more of the underlying causes.
I don’t have any statistics or studies to back this up, but after conversations with several large and medium workers comp payers it is apparent facility costs are on the rise. And the increase looks to be higher than projections,
The reasons appear to be several.
The second in the list of top ten reasons universal coverage is bad is…
People don’t have insurance because they choose to not buy it.
Admittedly there are several closely related arguments, but we’ll stick with the letter of the argument in this post, and address the relations later.
I will stipulate to some people choosing to not buy insurance, with the caveat that ‘some’ is a really small number. In fact, that ‘really small number’ is 2%. Yes, only 2% of those without insurance say they have no need for insurance.
So, at a simplistic level, the ‘choice’ argument goes down in flames. Alas, my more demanding readers will want more.
Yesterday I listed the top ten reasons some folks don’t like/hate/abhor/denigrate/snipe at universal coverage (that’s requiring everyone to have health insurance).
The rest of this week will be devoted to addressing the ‘UC is bad” arguments.
Covering the uninsured will cost about a hundred billion dollars.
And away we go!
Here’s the health care consumerism dilemma in one neat, small, understandable package.
Advocates of consumerism in health care argue that forcing folks to pay for their care will make them better consumers, and thus reduce costs. Theoretically, that makes sense – if you have to pay for something you won’t get more than you need, and you’ll keep yourself healthier to keep your costs down.
Continue reading Health policy — a question of philosophy or finance?
Jay at Colorado Health Insurance Insider makes a few trenchant observations on the “government is incompetent” meme.
