The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[Strangler Lewis]

If these were industry-wide mandates among private health insurers or large employers who paid for insurance--so that choice/opting out wouldn't really be an option--would you be as upset? It would still be the all-powerful impinging on our freedom to destroy ourselves in the name of saving a buck.

[Alex]

At least with private, choice/opting out is always a choice even if a horribly expensive one. And it already happens to a large extent in private insurance and is the cause of much of the hue and cry over the evils of the letting the profit motive be involved in the health equation.

As I argued in our last go 'round, a government run system doesn't get rid of the profit motive, just shifts it to a different type of profit. Instead of balancing service against profit, you end up balancing service against not inciting a tax revolt. So eventually both health care managers eventually try to do the same thing: control the risk profiles of the covered pools.

And once the government is involved in pretty much every health expense in society they will use that that as the thin wedge to controlling every personal behavior than can be shown to have ties to those expenses.

So to me, it is pretty much inherent to whatever system is instituted but I'd still prefer that it be in the private sector where at least the issue of force isn't present. (As one of the comments on the story notes, people denied coverage for "unsafe" behaviors are surely going to still be required to pay into the system.) At least in teh private sector I at least either pay for and get service (though Moore's film rightly points out breaks in this) or I don't get service and don't pay for it.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

If these were industry-wide mandates among private health insurers or large employers who paid for insurance--so that choice/opting out wouldn't really be an option--would you be as upset? It would still be the all-powerful impinging on our freedom to destroy ourselves in the name of saving a buck.

The beauty of the free market is that any industry wide mandate is either 1) forced upon the industry by the government or 2) disallowed by the government. Being that this is the case, I would be outraged, because it would be the government allowing it. So I suppose I answered it, but I disagree with the premise of the question.

The government has already done several good things in terms of portability of insurance. This was a fix I believe was prudent and necessary in a system where the primary source of health insurance is from employment. Only made sense to mandate that if an employee with a health difficulty changed jobs they couldn't be denied coverage at their new employ because of a pre existing condition.

I would not object if the private insurance system had programs that allowed discounts for healthy lifestyles or penalties for unhelthy ones....in fact, we already have it, but not to any extreme. Smokers may have to pay more for health and life insurance, and this is fine. I get a company discount on my employee portion of my health insurance costs by filling out a "health analysis" survey.

I don't have anyone forcing me to do anything.

I exercise daily because I see it as something that's beneficial. I don't eat many veggies. We all have things we do that aren't good for us. I don't want the government deciding that I can't be covered because of that. If I have a private company tell me that I must do something or pay more, than I have a choice.