Incentives in Health Care

Here's a great article which articulates my views on the fundamental debate of health care.

Health Care Article

I thought this was a good read.

Cost of Jobs

I just finished reading an article about the number of jobs, and the amount of money that has been spent from the stimulus bill in non-existent congressional districts. I'm sure it's just an accounting error, but that begs the questions, do we really trust what Recovery.gov really tells us? I tend to think that it might try and overstate the benifits derived. Even with that possible bias, these are the numbers right now from Recovery.gov

Total awards given out $158 Billion (this does not include any tax benefits, but is simply the money given out in grants, loans, and contracts)

Jobs Saved/Created 640,329 (I would love to know the exact mathematical formula for saving jobs, but I digress)

So, if you do the math, that comes out to be......

$246,748 per job. Do YOU think the stimulus is working???

Health Care disconnect

So, I was reading an AP poll today... It was all about health care. One statistic jumped out at me.

"For example, when asked if everyone should be required to have at least some health insurance, 67% agreed, and 27% said no."

This looks like a clear mandate to have universally required health insurance. But, they ask the same people this question.

"Should there be a federal penalty for not carrying insurance?"

The results: 64% were opposed, 28% were in favor.

So, it appears the majority of people want to mandate health insurance, but have no penalties if you don't follow the law... Is there a disconnect here?

Infuriating

This really drives me nuts. I don't care if you're democrat or republican, you shouldn't sell your vote, especially on something as big as health care. Rep. Dennis Cardoza wanted to fund some medical centers in his district. Not only did he push to start a "grant" of $500 million for the project, but then he took the "competitive grant", and had it written just for his district. No need for competition here, is there? Unbelievable.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29383.html

Pre-Existing Conditions

The house bill calls for insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions.... I think. I can't find the wording of the bill anywhere. Does it require coverage immediately, or like Hippa (passed in 1996) where the insurance company doesn't have to cover the condition for the first 6 months -1 year (I don't know exactly how long). Here are two stories of the two sides of the issue.



Let's say my son has some heart problems. I'm working for ACME, and I get fired. I quickly find a job at XYZ Corp, but they have a different issurance company, and they won't cover his condition for 6 months. After two months, he has to get open heart surgery, and I can't afford it. I either don't get the surgery and he dies, I pay the huge bill, or I go bankrupt, and the hospital has to eat the cost.



On the other hand, lets say I work for ACME, but I don't want to have to pay for insurance, so I don't. I'm a young, healthy adult. Then one day, as I'm walking in the woods, a tree falls on me. It looks like I'm going to be in the hospital for a couple of months. I hurry and get health insurance, and they can't deny me because it's a "pre-existing" condition. After 3 months of recouperation, I get out of the hospital, and quickly drop my insurance and won't pick it up again until I need it.

So, what should we do? The current bill makes sure those "evil" insurance companies can't discriminate against those who have pre-existing conditions... To make sure no-one drops their insurance, they make it mandatory... (Is this the first ever "existing" tax in the US? ie, the first tax you have to pay just for being alive)

What would I do? I think that insurance is simply a contract between me and the insurance company. That contract can be written however we want. If the terms are bad for the insurance company, no one should force them to do something they don't want. If the terms are bad for the consumer, no one should force them to buy it. But, once that contract is in place, the rule of law says it must be enforced. If the company tries to get out of it, and break their contract, that's what we have courts for. Some companies will write in a lot of pre-existing stuff, and give you cheaper insurance. Others won't, and will have higher premiums. It's the same with car insurance... If I'm a bad driver, and get in lots of accidents, then my premiums will go up, and possibly companies won't insure me. That's how a free market works.

But what about those who have life-long problems, and no one will insure them? I would be fine having the government help with those very few cases (Most states already have a high-risk pool you can get into). The social security administration takes care of some things... Do we really need to distort the free market for everyone, to help take care of the few that really need it and can't afford it?

What say you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgaeyMa3jyU