Blinded by Bias
Wednesday, 26 September 2007 by Jacob TomawYesterday I gave a too favorable reading to John Stossels health care article. I usually agree with Stossel and I made the leap that he must have been talking about things I agree with. After Joscelynn and Rob critisized the post, I reread the article and found it did not say what I thought it said.
Stossel takes a must harder view on insurance in general than I thought he did. I am not anti-insurance. I suspect my solution to the ‘health care crisis’ would lead to a more diverse insurance menu.
I think that our health care system is broken for two main reasons. First, government requires the minimum insurance to cover more items than the market would demand. Second, the cost of your insurance is almost complety hiden from you because most employers pay the majority of it. In the tale of the auto insurance, I was assuming these two things where being applied to auto insurance like they are for health insurance.
October 3rd, 2007 at 15:31
Finally read the full article and the follow-up - weirdly, I tend to agree with him for the most part.
One of your claims is actually applied to auto insurance; many states require that you carry a minimum level of insurance, usually liability and collision. Basically, before you’re allowed to drive, you have to be provably be able to pay for any damages that occur while you’re driving, if you’re at fault. This still has nothing to do with health insurance, which is basically covering yourself, not other people.
Regardless, I don’t really see how the state is at fault for anything much here. Most places do not force people or employers to purchase certain levels of health insurance (although they do give a discount). The only thing I can think of is to start making company-sponsored health care less attractive to the companies, and more attractive to purchase personally. Why is it so expensive to purchase private health insurance? COBRA is, for all practical purposes, unfordable to even well-compensated families. What is Stossel’s solution? If higher co-pays lead to lower premiums and lower costs then The Market should cause companies to shift, right?
I think the problem is that there is generally limited choice in health plans provided by an employer, and that going outside of the employer is not really a good option for most people.
I also notice that lower-income citizens are left out of this discussion altogether. Do we have any responsibility to preserve the health of those who cannot afford insurance?