So don’t tell me that the uninsured are the freeloaders, as a matter of truth, those who are greedily hoping to receive their healthcare cheaper, are the actual freeloaders. Laws, that the insurance lobby have bribed into existence, force the uninsured who get sick to use the very expensive emergency rooms that are controlled (exempt from anti-trust laws) by those same insurance companies. That way, those poor uninsured sick people, even though they receive no insurance, will be billed for a whole slue of insurance related services that they did not receive! That’s right, the uninsured get billed for the healthcare that they receive, and for a lot more besides, which they didn’t receive.

We uninsured people are not freeloaders you insured guys, expecting to get cheaper healthcare at our expense, are the real freeloaders. I can’t afford to get care because you guys make care cost too much. You frivolously use healthcare for a runny nose and “who cares” how much it costs because you’re covered, but you could care less how your actions are affecting others.

I won’t be showing up at a emergency room unless there is an actual emergency, and even then I’ll have to pay the “who cares” pricing demanded by your insurance company! Why should I have to pay for the salary of the medical coder, the claims adjuster, the insurance training of receptionists, etc.

Now, obviously not everyone who buys health insurance is a greedy freeloader, many are simply fooled into it. They foolishly accept “insurance” instead of cash for compensation at their place of work. Of course, and by evil design, if you “opt” out you don’t get the cash. (there are equal pay laws, but the “Insurance lobby” has bribed a loophole into these laws regardless of all the victims of this discrimination.) So, if you are insured, ask yourself why. Are you, greedy or foolish?

The number one thing that those who oppose the healthcare reform are angry about is the individual mandate. However, in order to address the problem of denying people with pre-existing conditions (which most people do support) there has to be a mandate, since otherwise people could just wait until they were sick to buy insurance, because they couldn’t be denied for a pre-existing condition. It would be like being allowed to buy homeowner’s insurance after a house burnt down, which of course would not work. That is what also makes the fee for not buying insurance necessary, since if people can’t be denied for pre-existing conditions and there wasn’t any fee for not getting insurance, people could wait until they were sick, which would actually lead to higher premiums for those who are already paying for insurance, since they would actually be paying for the other peoples’ treatments, since they had never paid anything previously. This is actually what is happening when people use the ER, because they don’t have insurance. The problem of people not being able to afford the premiums is being addressed with subsidies. This is such a complex problem that there have to be some compromises, but they are certainly worth it given that health insurance has become a financial hardship for so many people and companies. It seems that if people realized that the mandate and fee are necessary to correct the situation for people with pre-existing conditions, rather than hearing about risk pools, they still may not be happy about it, but they would not want it repealed. Therefore, repealing the individual mandate and/or the fine will result in also having to repeal the ban on denying people with pre-existing conditions the right to buy insurance, including children. CNN said that 18,000 people die each year from the inability to pay for medical care (some estimates are as high as 45,000). Certainly no one who believes in family values could ever support putting other people in that situation.
Could you let me know if there are any places that explain the connection between the mandate/fee and the ban on denying pre-existing conditions?

Thanks very much, Beth Boggs

Some physicians have gotten rid of insurer middlemen by refusing to sign contracts and running cash practices.

If one judges the usefulness of insurer middlement in health systems by physician willingness to participate, it seems clear that physicians prefer private systems with insurer middlemen to government systems in which government control eliminates insurer middlemen. Consider Medicaid.

A note on Hayek: I cited a specific article by Hayek. That means that I think that the content of that particular article bears on this discussion. It does not, as I recall and as some commentators seem to think it does, mention Darwinian evolution, discuss Popper’s critique of the application of natural science methods to the study of human society, or comment on various moral systems.

The article that I did cite is readily available on the Web.