Health care (Maryland's absurd position)

[Richard]

How corrupt can a government get?  Forcing companies to spend a certain percentage of their revenue on health care is pretty close to organized crime.

It is not a business' responsibility to provide health care.  It is not the government's responsibility.  It is your responsibility.

If people want to make a case for emergency care and life-saving surgery, I can understand that and may even relent on my absolutist approach.

However, today health care in the United States is synonymous to transfer payments to insurance and pharmaceutical companies.  This is the ultimate rip off.

The primary responsibilty for your health is ... YOU.  Yes, YOU.  Not your parents, not your kids, not the government, not your neighbors, and certainly not your employer.  Americans spend more on health care than any other country in the world per capita yet are more diseased and sick than any other comparible country in the world.  Why?  The diet and exercise.

It is NOT a secret that if you do not consume sugar, high fructose corn syrup, white refined foods, chocolates, snacks, fast food, and other disasterously unhealthy foods, and if you actually get off your lazy ass and go for a walk in the park once in a while, you will NOT GET SICK all the damn time.

Heart disease, cancer, high blood pressure, cholesterol problems, and diabetes are all names very unfamiliar in third-world countries where people (that can afford to eat and it is safe to do so, but that is not the point) actually consume healthy food on a daily basis.  It is NOT NORMAL for a population to be so diseased, and I do not think it is fair to expect corporations to foot the bill for people's disgusting and unhealthy habits.

A better approach would be to force companies to spend a certain percentage of revenue on health care costs, *provided* those receiving the benefits follow a certain diet and exercise plan.  If you are going to force companies from the one side, allow them to pass it along.  Make it a dual responsibility: mainly yours, and if you bring your side, the company will do her side.

It is absolutely absurd what Maryland is doing, and luckily it got overturned, albeit in a wrongful way.

Rant over.

[??????????]

Actually chocolate isn't bad for you. But other then that, I agree with your rant.

[Dr. Cynic]

Rant your little heart out, but right is right. People should be able to get health care, and when the cold hearted corporations don't provide it, then I believe the government should provide the help needed for these people, especially considering how out of control medical costs are.

And if any country needs health insurance, it's this one. There is no other nation that is as obsessed with health as America. I read a thirty-three page pamphlet on symptoms of Parkinson's disease at my doctors office... I was just there for a checkup, and by the time I went to see my doctor, I had friggin Parkinson's disease!

I know it's not really a good thing to joke about like that, but the costs and literal fearmongering in this country about it's health... It seems that this country should most certainly have a national health plan.

[Max]

Forcing companies to spend a certain percentage of their revenue on health care...

...sounds like a pretty good system that could propably give health care to millions of Americans who can't afford it today.

[MODU]

I have no problems requiring companies who employ hundreds of people to offer at least some form of health care, but the way Maryland went at it with their legislation was completely wrong and abuse of political power.  Thank goodness the judge had a brain in their head when the case came up.  Maryland has wasted over a year now as a result and has to go back and redraft their legislation so it is fair for all large corporations, and not drafted to attack just one company.

[opebo]

How corrupt can a government get?  Forcing companies to spend a certain percentage of their revenue on health care is pretty close to organized crime.

It is not a business' responsibility to provide health care.  It is not the government's responsibility.  It is your responsibility.

It is the responsibility of whoever those with power make it, Richious.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is hardly that simple, masochist.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

While I agree that most people are healthier here in Thailand - for example - but I don't think it is reasonable for you to think your subjective 'disgust' at another's habits should bear any weight.

[ag]

Have you ever heard of such things that economists call "moral hazard" and "adverse selection"?  If not, you should read up on it, before making statements of this sort.

Having said that, the particular Maryland law in question was a bad idea.

[Frodo]

A better approach would be to force companies to spend a certain percentage of revenue on health care costs, *provided* those receiving the benefits follow a certain diet and exercise plan.  If you are going to force companies from the one side, allow them to pass it along.  Make it a dual responsibility: mainly yours, and if you bring your side, the company will do her side.

Interesting, and not actually a bad idea.  Putting the rest of your rant aside, I never agreed with you on much if anything as you are no doubt well aware even though I rarely converse with you, but I could not agree more (at least in concept) on your emphasis on personal responsibility when it comes to employer-provided healthcare, and how that should be made one of the major factors determining whether certain people should receive it.     

[Jake]

Not all of us are hyprocrites, however.

[ag]

There is a basic problem with purely privately provided non-mandatory medical (or other) insurance: an individual in general knows more about his or her health and habits that is either possible or desirable (for privacy reasons) to share with an insurance company.  This is what we economists call "asymmetric information problem" and it implies that insurance markets have difficulty existing without heavy government intervention.

One side of the problem is that there may be factors concerning my health that are independent of my future behavior, but are reliably known only to me. I might know that I have been having heart palpitations recently, or that I've been exposed to high levels of radiation, or that that my great-uncle died of diabetes, or whatever. Some of these things might not be easily detectable during a regular check-up, others might involve very private  matters that I might not be legally obliged to share or might be able to successfully conceal (or, at least, conceal my knowledge of - eg, my great-uncle's cause of death).  Now, if I know that I am reasonably healthy and have little risk of disease I would be willing to share that information, but not be willing to pay a lot for insurance. Conversely, if I have a high risk of sickness, I would try to conceal it, but will be willing to pay a lot to get insurance. 

Here is the rub: the insurance company cannot always figure out which group I belong to, but, if it charges everyone the average expected cost of insurance, the healthiest types would not buy it as it would be too expensive for them.  Therefore, the insurance company knows that if you buy insurance, you are not very healthy. But then, it should charge even more for insurance to break even, since the "average propensity to be sick" of insurance buyers is higher than average in the society. But, once that happens, even the "moderately sick" would find the insurance too expensive and drop out the market.  This is what economists call "adverse selection": only the "worst" types self-select to participate in the market.

The problem is partially aleviated by insurance companies using all types of incomplete insurance contracts (hence, deductibles, copayments, etc.), but the essence is not changed by it: only the sickest people can be fully insured in a market, and they have to pay a lot for it.  Even though the less sick would want to get rid of the risk, markets can't insure them, since the more sick would try to pretend less sick than they are if a sufficiently cheap insurance is offered to attract the less sick.

The governments try to prevent this outcome by requiring purchasing insurance. It can be done either by forcing the employers to buy the insurance for employees, or by outright government provision, or by ordering private purchase of insurance by all or nearly all (the Massachussets route recently, but also something very common in car accident liability insurance markets, etc.), or by some other government decree.  There are a number of reasons why I believe the first of these routes, which is what Maryland chose, is usually a very bad idea, especially if done at a subnational level.  But some sort of government intervention, is, unfortunately, indispensible.

The adverse selection problem is, in general, one of the most important arguments for government provision of medical insurance, if not of the medical care itself (other arguments might have to do with equity considerations, etc., but I choose to ignore these here). On the other hand a related asymmetric information problem (what economists call "moral hazard", the imperfect observability of individual action by the insurer - nobody can really tell for sure how frequently you eat bacon for breakfast) implies that outright government provision itself may create new problems, perhaps encouraging people to behave irresponsibly - unless, that is, the government intervention is designed very carefully. But the basic fact is not changed - the government must have a role in providing medical insurance (either through direct provision or regulation) - otherwise, the markets will simply fail to exist for the most part.

[MODU]

It is always nice for someone who is not sick to go on such a rant and say that health care is"your resposibility"  However, when the individual who started this thread becomes dreadfully ill someday, or is in a car accident, he will understand. 

It is upon the individuals responsibility to obtain insurance coverage.  So, like me, if/when I do become dreadfully ill, I have insurance to cover me. 

[TheresNoMoney]

It is upon the individuals responsibility to obtain insurance coverage.  So, like me, if/when I do become dreadfully ill, I have insurance to cover me. 

Not everyone makes as much as you. Health insurance usually runs at least a couple thousand a year, if not more (especially if your employer doesn't cover it).

[jerusalemcar5]

The reason American get sick could just be....

They can't afford health care!

*GASP!*

Please, health care should be guaranteed to people.  The reaosn we pay so much for health care is because we DON'T have a national system and have corrupt insurance and pharmaceutical companies running the show.  There is no question that the government should and must fend for its people and give them the right to health care so we aren't so diseased.  We already have large government programs to fight obesity, yet we can't offer decent health care coverage.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

How corrupt can a government get?  Forcing companies to spend a certain percentage of their revenue on health care is pretty close to organized crime.

I'd hate to tell you this, but that's part of the government's job.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then we need to listen to Kucinich who said, "I'm not in the business of selling insurance."

[Nation]

The courts struck that down -- the same day you posted that, Rich.

[MODU]

It is upon the individuals responsibility to obtain insurance coverage.  So, like me, if/when I do become dreadfully ill, I have insurance to cover me. 

Not everyone makes as much as you. Health insurance usually runs at least a couple thousand a year, if not more (especially if your employer doesn't cover it).

EXACTLY!  Which is why Maryland doesn't need to burden their healthcare system with unneeded expenses and nor target companies (or in this case one company) unfairly thinking the state needs to cover more people than it actually does. 

[Nym90]

I think this legislation made sense. Walmart was essentially benefiting from corporate welfare by getting the government to pay for health care expenses that most other companies would be paying for on their own. This is extremely bad for the economy overall, and something needed to be done about it. Overall they were doing more harm than good to the state, so it's only right and proper they be taxed to make up this difference.

I'm not necessarily a big fan of the details of the bill, requiring a certain percentage to be paid on health care, but overall I agreed with it due its goal. In the year 2006 decent health care should be a human right for anyone who is employed full time.

[MODU]

Found this on Money.com, and thought it was worth posting: