We uninsured Americans gotta stick together.
Socialists, who want the government to force us to buy their idea of health
insurance or to "cover" us with government-provided insurance, are attacking
us.
California Gov. Schwarzenegger, Massachusetts Gov. Patrick, and others who
worry about a "hidden tax" that we inflict on the insured are also attacking
us.
Then there are those who want to force us to buy health insurance.
We're being attacked from all sides.
Before I get into more details, remember that health "insurance" is not the
same as actually getting medical needs met.
Having health insurance is often very different from actually getting
medical problems evaluated and treated quickly and appropriately.
Centralized or socialized health services always seem to end up delaying
medical care for serious conditions or expensive treatment, such as cancer
and joint replacements. The Soviet Union, England, Canada, and many other
countries did not or do not fulfill supposedly guaranteed rights to timely
medical services, resulting in unnecessary suffering and premature deaths.
Some of our uninsured brethren don't pay their bills for hospital emergency
room services, forcing hospitals and doctors to make up the difference by
overcharging those who can pay, such as people with insurance or uninsured
people with money.
John R. Graham of the Pacific Research Institute based in San Francisco
writes, "To back up this notion, Families USA, a self-styled consumer
advocacy group, estimates that the uninsured used about $29 billion worth of
health services in 2005 that the privately insured paid for through higher
premiums." He recently published "The Uninsured Versus The Insured: Who
Subsidizes Whom?" (Go to
www.pacificresearch.org/pub/hpp/2007/HPPv5n2_0207.pdf.)
There's more to the story. Graham calculates that "the uninsured likely pay
at least $150 billion extra in federal income taxes alone, by forgoing the
tax savings associated with private health insurance." These dollars - five
times the purported hidden tax - "dwarf the hidden tax of uninsurance."
In terms of taxes paid, we uninsured are actually subsidizing the insured
rather than the other way around. The insured are the ones getting the
income tax break, not us uninsureds.
Graham claims there is indeed a real hidden tax, "but it is levied by the
insured on their fellow insured. Because of bad incentives, insured
Americans use health services twice as much, per person, as the uninsured."
Some politicians want to force us uninsured to get some kind of insurance so
that they can claim that they have solved our "problem" of not having (or
not wanting) health insurance. Graham notes, "political success in health
policy now consists, basically, of ordering the uninsured to become
insured."
We doubt that any such mandate will be any more effective than the laws in
47 states that require drivers to buy liability auto insurance. As Greg
Scandlen, president of Consumers for Health Care Choices based in
Hagerstown, Md., reports in the Baltimore Sun, "the notion that a
legislature can wave a magic wand and change everyone's behavior is naive at
best."
Although my own Washington state requires automobile owners and drivers to
have auto liability insurance, about 18 percent of motorists do not. Even
though health insurance isn't mandated, 16 percent of the Washington
population has coverage, according to Scandlen. And speaking of mandates,
most states have laws to force insurance companies to include pet coverages
in health insurance policies.
Although politicians often try to claim these mandates "protect the public"
or are "good for you," mandates invariably reflect the medical and financial
interests of pressure groups.
If mandates did protect the public at the expense of special interest
groups, those groups would campaign against them. Special interest groups,
such as general medical or limited practitioners, back proposed mandates,
not the other way around, to enhance their own power, income or both.
I am uninsured because health insurance is unhealthy for me. After
diligently studying and promoting medical savings account (MSA) plans 10
years ago, I bought a policy from Anthem Health of New Jersey for my
college-age son and myself.
To make the long story short, the insurance proposal of dozens of pages had
a $2,000 individual deductible; but the 100-page insurance policy actually
issued had a $4,000 deductible, causing a great deal of correspondence and
dismay when medical services were actually used.
I canceled that policy early in 1998.
I've been living uninsured and more happily ever since, until the Social
Security bureaucrats foisted Medicare Part A on me.
I could swear off Medicare Part A but the ever-so-wise Social Security
Administration would then stop sending Social Security checks. Medicare Part
A currently "covers" me for hospital services. I have sworn off Medicare
Part B and D. (Don't ask me what Part C is.)
Health insurance can be a valuable financial planning tool. Some families
have other priorities for the use of their resources, such as spending on
care for their parents or educating their children or making car payments so
they can get to work. Politicians and others should respect and not usurp
these decisions, no matter how good their intentions might be.
Insurance itself is not the goal; the goal is appropriate, timely and
efficient care of medical needs, as judged by real patients and their
families, not politicians or medical insurance bureaucrats.
Editor's Note: Robert J. Cihak wrote this week's column painlessly.
