Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 12:53:26 EDT
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Right to health care?
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Oct15.215209.18298@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>,
mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) says:
>
>Just a couple of questions regarding the dream of giving everyone in the US
>health insurance:
>
>  If it's mandated that everyone receive coverage, what incentive is there
>for the person who is living a lifestyle not in the best interest of their
>body to clean up their act?  Right now insurance companies have the option

How about staying alive, a very strong incentive indeed.  Actually, all the
studies I've seen show that direct user taxes and education work far better
at spurring healthy lifestyles than do risk rated premiums.  If you have
evidence to the contrary, post it.

>of either dropping or charging higher premiums to the guy who smokes three
>packs of cigarettes a day and downs a 12-pack of beer before going to bed.
>If it's his "right" to receive coverage, will he change his ways?  And if
>he doesn't, will the money that goes for treatment of problems caused by
>his lifestyle be well spent?
>
>  With the budget constraints we have now, only a small fraction of those
>who seek treatment for drug addiction manage to get into an available slot.
>With everyone having a "right" to health insurance, how much will it cost
>if hundreds of thousands of addicts demand treatment which they say they
>have a "right" to?  And considering that only a tiny fraction (<5%?) are
>successful in the treatment programs, will that money be well spent?

All NHI programs define a basic set of services to be paid for.  In many
cases other services can also be purchased.  Numerous methods, including
various mixtures of market and non-market controls are used to determine
who gets care and when.

>  If people have a "right" to health insurance, can't the same argument be
>made that people have a "right" to auto insurance, home insurance, and
>other forms of financial protection?  Many people lose their life savings
>due to auto accidents and catastrophes which destroy their homes.  Do
>people have a "right" to be protected financially by the government in
>every situation?

Few people that I know consider these goods to be nearly as important for
life.

>  I agree that something should be done so that everyone has access to
>basic health care, but have all the ramifications been thought out of the
>blanket programs which have been proposed?

There's no way in the world to predict everything that might happen
if we change our health care system.  Does that mean we should stand around
picking our nose until the implications of every detail is explored???


Dennis G. Shea, Penn State
<<DISCLAIMER>>
Ain't nobody's bizness but my own. I'll be happy to accept all
the credit for anything I've written.  It's funny, however, how
employers only acknowledge the profitable ideas.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8636 alt.politics.marrou:1546 talk.politics.misc:50910 alt.politics.elections:16108 talk.politics.theory:4502 alt.politics.clinton:9717 alt.sex:32662