From: sug6@amber.uucp (Patrick Sugent)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Right to health care?
Date: 15 Oct 92 23:18:04 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Chicago


  I hardly claim to have a complete understanding of this issue,
but you raise some good questions, so here are my best shots at some
answers.

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?

  You hit two nails on the head here.  A vast majority of health
care problems are created by three things (i) cigarettes, (ii) alcohol,
and (iii) eating very poorly (with a _strong_ emphasis on (i) and (ii)).  
Insuring health care for all, however, does not mean that these people
necessarily pay the same.  The _only_ health reform package I've
seen to date that makes any sense to me was put forth by the
American College of Physicians.  In this report, they mention several
things to encourage behavior controls, such as (I) taxing both
cigarettes and alcohol much higher in relation to the damage they do
and (II) adopting co-payments for those not in the low-income category.

  The report is far more detailed than this, of course, but since
I can't do it justice in a net.article, I won't try. :-)

>  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?

  Given the cost both real and social of drug addiction, I suspect that
this would easily pay for itself in the long run.

>  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?

  Well, Clinton doesn't have a thought out proposal by any "objective"
source I've read (US News, Time, Economist, WSJ, Medical Groups, etc.).  
Clinton appears to be trying to straddle several positions on health
care while taking none of them (surprise).  Bush's health care proposal
is considered even more unrealistic by these same sources.  (I forget
where I read it, but one source said that Bush's plan was like a jigsaw
puzzle with some pieces missing.  Clinton's proposal has all the pieces,
but they are from different puzzles and don't fit together).  As I said,
I've only read of one plan I would want to see implemented.  I don't agree
with all of it, but the fact that it puts "managed" market controls on all 
the groups involved (lawyers, doctors, insurance companies, government) has
to give it some merit. :-)  [This is the plan by the American
College of Physicians.]

  Given enough prodding, I could type in the overview of the proposal.

Pat



-- 
Patrick Sugent				E-mail me if you really want  
sug6@amber.uchicago.edu 		a response.  My USENET reading
(708) 447-1771				is haphazard at best.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8628 alt.politics.clinton:9708 alt.politics.elections:16100