Tuesday, October 07, 2008

Truely free-market health care would be much better than universal health care

Health insurers are required to cover many specific conditions by the states they operate in. It's private companies operating in a socialized context - its not a free market system.

You should be able to self-insure yourself, and have it come out to be less expensive over your lifetime. However, that is not possible because people with health insurance pay a different pre-coverage rate than those who are non(self)-insured. That doesn't make sense.

Why should people pay the same rates regardless of their health condition? A free-market system will allow for different levels of coverage and medical care to satisfy people at all levels of the income scale. Sorry, but I don't believe that the country owes all citizens the highest possible level of care regardless of income, as the current system pretends and Obama's plan will attempt to enforce. Additionally, there are basic personal care steps that anyone can take to drastically reduce health care costs over a lifetime - however many people elect not to follow them. That may be their choice, but I don't agree with paying for it as I currently do.

Can you point out an example where socialized medicine has worked and been cost effective on a scale even close to the U.S.?

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.



No comments: