Thursday, June 09, 2005
IBD: Health insurance premiums pay for the uninsured
[Editorial, "No Free Lunch In Health Care, Either," Investor's Business Daily, 9 June 2005.]
The editors at Investor's Business Daily are tired of hearing about how universal coverage is the answer to the uninsured, and point out that insured Americans are already making a substantial contribution to providing care for this population:
There's a myth that goes something like this: Millions of people have no health insurance and are receiving no care at all. A new study shows just how wrong that is.
It's true that 48 million Americans lack health insurance. But it's simply not true that they get no care at all. They do get care — and you pay for it. At least, that's the conclusion of a study by Families USA, a liberal advocacy group.
And how much do you pay? According to the study, premiums for employer-provided family health insurance average $10,979 nationwide. But $922 of that is just to cover the uninsured, a burden that is projected to climb to $1,502 by 2010. This is helping drive health care spending ever higher on a per capita basis (see chart).
This is a big issue — linked to what economists call the "free rider" problem. Yes, it's true some of the uninsured are at or near poverty and need help of one sort or another.
But the problem's not that cut and dried. And it doesn't require some kind of radical, big-government "universal care" solution, as some have suggested.
In sifting through census data last year, for instance, Blue Cross & Blue Shield Association uncovered some interesting facts about the uninsured.
Many, for example, do have jobs. They simply choose not to be covered, often because they're young and healthy. But, hey, why should they? When things go bad, the rest of us are there to pick up the tab.
What's the solution?
It isn't a centralized, national health care plan. Nor is it more rules at the federal and state level — they are already a big cause of this nation's soaring health care costs.
Medical savings accounts, no doubt, will make insurance more appealing to those with jobs.
The bottom line is this: The uninsured are a big burden on working families. The truly poor, a small number, deserve our help.
But at some point, we must recognize that people who choose to be uninsured even though they can afford it should not be a burden on the rest of us.
Economists have a nifty acronym for this: TANSTAAFL. As in, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
[Matthew Hisrich, "Greatest increase in uninsured found among wealthy," The Flint Hills Center, 10 May 2004.]
[Editorial, "No Free Lunch In Health Care, Either," Investor's Business Daily, 9 June 2005.]
The editors at Investor's Business Daily are tired of hearing about how universal coverage is the answer to the uninsured, and point out that insured Americans are already making a substantial contribution to providing care for this population:
There's a myth that goes something like this: Millions of people have no health insurance and are receiving no care at all. A new study shows just how wrong that is.
It's true that 48 million Americans lack health insurance. But it's simply not true that they get no care at all. They do get care — and you pay for it. At least, that's the conclusion of a study by Families USA, a liberal advocacy group.
And how much do you pay? According to the study, premiums for employer-provided family health insurance average $10,979 nationwide. But $922 of that is just to cover the uninsured, a burden that is projected to climb to $1,502 by 2010. This is helping drive health care spending ever higher on a per capita basis (see chart).
This is a big issue — linked to what economists call the "free rider" problem. Yes, it's true some of the uninsured are at or near poverty and need help of one sort or another.
But the problem's not that cut and dried. And it doesn't require some kind of radical, big-government "universal care" solution, as some have suggested.
In sifting through census data last year, for instance, Blue Cross & Blue Shield Association uncovered some interesting facts about the uninsured.
Many, for example, do have jobs. They simply choose not to be covered, often because they're young and healthy. But, hey, why should they? When things go bad, the rest of us are there to pick up the tab.
What's the solution?
It isn't a centralized, national health care plan. Nor is it more rules at the federal and state level — they are already a big cause of this nation's soaring health care costs.
Medical savings accounts, no doubt, will make insurance more appealing to those with jobs.
The bottom line is this: The uninsured are a big burden on working families. The truly poor, a small number, deserve our help.
But at some point, we must recognize that people who choose to be uninsured even though they can afford it should not be a burden on the rest of us.
Economists have a nifty acronym for this: TANSTAAFL. As in, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
[Matthew Hisrich, "Greatest increase in uninsured found among wealthy," The Flint Hills Center, 10 May 2004.]
Comments:
Post a Comment
