From: mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac)
Subject: Re: Right to health care?
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center [Cleveland, Ohio]
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 15:44:49 GMT

In article <1bmdvlINN77k@rave.larc.nasa.gov> jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov writes:
>In article <1992Oct15.215209.18298@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
>>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
>>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?
>
>So what does this have to do with everyone 
>recieving health insurance? According
>to some of the plans I've read, the government will pickup the cost of the
>insurance for those who are unemployed. For those that ARE employed, the
>company will be required to "provide" health insurance, not pick up the
>entire tab. Most companies that *do* offer health insurance for their
>employees basically split the cost. It has nothing to say about not charging
>higher premiums for Joe Six-Pack. So, if Joe here smokes & drinks, thats his
>choice, but he'll have to pay higher premiums for insurance...

But any plan which seeks to account for everyone would fall apart if
the unemployed and low income folks who "smoke and drink" are charged
higher premiums.  Since they could not afford it and have a "right" to
health insurance, the public would be forced to pay the higher premiums
which were the result of their lifestyle choice.

>I have a *major* problem with insurance companies "dropping" a person, or
>not insuring them in the first place because of "pre-existing conditions".
>This option is getting abused especially with the genetic testing available
>nowdays..."we can't insure you because you have a genetic pre-disposition
>for heart problems...". 

I agree.  Those people had no choice in acquiring those diseases.

>I would like to see the health insurance industry provide more incentives
>for being healthy, such as promoting an paying for proactive treatment 
>(annual physicals, pap smears, mammograms, etc...), and possibly reducing
>premiums for those who *choose* to live a healthy life style...

I agree.

>>  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?
>>
>
>Well, part of the reason for the budget constraints are that we are paying
>1/3 of our annual budget to the military, and 1/3 of it to pay INTEREST on the
>4 trillion dollar debt. The remaining 1/3 go to everything else...perhaps 
>we should rethink our national priorities...

The question remains - how much will it cost if the above scenario becomes
reality?

>>  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?
>>
>I thought the phrase was..."...the right to LIFE, liberty and the persuit
>of happiness...", but seriously, people can do without a car, people cannot
>do without their health. Owning a car is not necessarily in the national
>interest, having a healthy work force is DEFINETLY in the national interest.
>Take a look at you're health (not just your contribution, but how much
>your employer pays also), car, and house insurance premiums. For myself
>and my wife, the health insurance premiums MONTHLY are about the same
>as the YEARLY premiums for my house insurance. (an order of magnitude
>difference!!!)

We already jump in and pay out for people who lose their belongings due to
earthquakes, tornadoes, forest fires, hurricanes, etc. and didn't have the
brains to buy their own insurance.  And everyday courts are letting
convicted drunken drivers have access to their cars because they are
considered a "necessity".  Home and auto insurance could easily be
stretched in the future to be included as a "right".

>>  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?
>
>Good point...I hope *whoever* wins in November will take a LONG HARD look
>at ALL the ramifications of health care...The question then becomes who
>do you think HAS and WILL think long and hard about health care for the
>average person?

-- 
Richard Mulac                                     mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov
NASA Lewis Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road, MS 5-9, Cleveland, OH  44135
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        "There's a simple explanation for all           | These pontifications
              of this." - Bill Clinton                  |      are my own!    
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh