29
« on: March 20, 2017, 04:43:26 AM »
Although I often use the Google-Wiki combination for a quick primer on issues, it is not authoritative. The full Wiki article on US health insurance describes medical accident insurance offered in the 1850's.
But put that aside, and just work through the logic. Think about the mechanics of the medical market with and without insurance. Absent widespread (employer-based) health insurance, would individuals save an amount equal to their premiums each year to be available for medical expenses? Some might; still others might save generally, but not as much and/or not dedicated only to health expenses; most will save little or nothing and attempt to cash flow their needs. This would greatly reduce the medical industry's pricing power.
Now, even for those who saved the full measure, once that individual pool of money is exhausted, would doctors have any ability to access the saved funds of others (outside perhaps immediate family members) in order to pay for extraordinary care? The insurance model necessarily means that funds from those who don't need services are used to pay for those who do. Ergo, doctors/hospitals/pharma can charge more to those who do need it, and those people have a resource from which to pay the amount charged.
Listen, I'm a capitalist. I'm not necessarily ascribing a sinister motive to any of this or putting red horns on your neighborhood family doctor. But if we are going to seriously discuss any attempt to "fix" the system, aka, provide health care services to people who can't otherwise afford it, or more generally reduce the cost of health care overall ('bend the cost curve'), then pursuing a model that is designed and operates to increase cost doesn't seem logical, does it?