Obamacare

We Probably Didn't Need Those Child-Only Health Insurance Policies Anyway

|

Today's entry from the No One Could Have Predicted! File is a new rule for health insurers scheduled to take effect in just a few days on the PPACA's six-month anniversary. Because health insurance is For The Children, and because Democrats putting together the new health care law wanted new consumer benefits to trumpet in the weeks prior to the November election, they built a provision into the law telling insurers that, starting this Thursday, September 23, they could no longer turn down child for a child-only health policy because of preexisting conditions. In effect, though, that means that children who are already sick won't be turned down, which, yes, sounds very nice — and would be if it were feasible and not likely to lead to insurance gaming.

Here's the problem: It also means that parents attempting to enroll their children in these policies might have the option to wait until the last minute to pick up coverage and then drop that coverage immediately thereafter. There's an enrollment period that's supposed to limit jumping on and off insurance, but as Politico notes, the rules don't "address how to cover anyone — healthy or sick — outside the open enrollment period if, say, a child's parent loses his or her job and coverage." Consequently, the article explains, "insurers are worried that children — or, more likely, their parents — might apply for coverage literally on the way to the hospital or doctor's office and cancel it once treatment is complete." That would drive up expenses for child-only policies, which would push more people out of the insurance pool, which would further drive up coverage costs, and so on and so forth spinning faster and faster until the out of control merry-go-round has thrown off just about everyone.

Looks like Congress found this and put it to use.

And so at least six large insurers have decided to stop offering these policies entirely.

Naturally, liberal health care advocates aren't happy, and think the insurers are dissembling, or at least being very mean. Ethan Rome, a spokesman for the ObamaCare-Or-Busters at Health Care for America Now, has already managed to declare to a reporter at The Washington Post that for insurers "to blame their appalling behavior on the new law is patently dishonest." But if it's dishonest to say that the change is a reaction to the new rules, then should we trust Rome? In another article, he says straightforwardly that the decision to stop offering those policies was, well, a response the new regulations: "They [insurers] don't like the rules, so they're going to take their ball and go home," he wrote at The Huffington Post.

In some ways, it's a small change: Child-only policies currently comprise less than 10 percent of the individual market, and insurers will still cover children, including those with preexisting conditions, in policies that aren't strictly child-only. Existing child-only policies won't be canceled. But it's indicative of one of the new health care law's fundamental contradictions: Insurers are expected to both abide by new rules, which could prove costly, and not significantly change their prices or services in response to them. And it suggests how easy it is for well-meaning policies to backfire. A provision intended to ensure that children have unimpeded access to health insurance coverage has ended up resulting in fewer options for covering children's health.

NEXT: Reason Writers Around Town: Katherine Mangu-Ward on Frankenfish at Esquire.com

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. So, people (both providers and consumers) change their behavior when government intervenes in markets? That’s bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. We need more government to modify this behaviorial modification.

    1. Whoa, slow down… first, we need government studies to identify the proper course(s) of action to take – funded with stimulus money, of course.

      Gotta think like a bureaucrat. They’re sneaky bastards.

    2. Agreed. The sort of misinformation in this article will not be tolerated. Seg Heil!

  2. Obvious consequences are not unintended.

    1. Agreed. Now the next argument will be “Government provided care is the only solution to this problem with the insurance companies!”

      They will, however, neglect to mention that THEY caused the problem in the first place.

    2. Possible. However, we’re talking about a colossal bill written by we don’t know who, not read by the very people pushing for its passage, to fulfill completely political aims, without any means testing, and with pie-in-the-sky ideas behind it.

      You may not want to ascribe to malice that which may simply be stupidity. Granted, it’s a criminal, vicious level of stupidity, that borders on malice just from its disregard for consequences; but still, possibly just stupidity.

      1. Shorter: never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence or stupidity.

        1. Malice, however, fuels the progressive’s stupidity, so it is not so easy to separate the two.

          1. In fact, D.C. is virtually a Town Called Malice. But only if you’re in a Jam.

            1. Too bad it’s not a Ghost Town.

      2. In common law murder, disregard that rises to a sufficient level of recklessness and disregard for human life (depraved heart) can alone supply the requisite intent for murder.

      3. True. But even though this was caused by negligence rather than malice, these people are still just as evil.

    3. Actually, unintended consequences can exist even if reasonably intelligent people not blinded by partisan ideology could see the obvious outcomes.

      It only has to be unintended by the person who, with the best of intentions, ignored or didn’t believe everyone who pointed out what would happen if their wet dream legislation actually got enacted.

      Now, if the KNEW it would be a clusterfuck, and did it anyway because they thought it would play out well politically for them, then it wasn’t unintended.

      1. It was the stated intention of this healthcare plan to create the conditions to allow a move to single provider healthcare in the 2017 timeframe. As such I think it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that this was not entirely unintended.

    4. This is what happens when you let retards fuck with complex systems.

      1. Hilarity ensues

    5. Obvious consequences are not unintended.

      I prefer tweaking RC Dean when he posts this due to his Iraq War dead-ender position, but alas…doesn’t this mean that every “collaterally damaged” dead civilian in Iraq and Afghanistan represents an intentional killing on the part of the US military?

      1. Why not? They knew what happens in wars.

  3. As a former health insurer underwriter, all this seems entirely predictable. Really, WTF did the Ds think would happen when they allowed parents to wait until their kids were sick to enroll and start paying premiums?

    The only odd part is that the Ds let this go into effect BEFORE the election. Were they hoping to play “For Teh Childrunz” and “Teh EVUL insurers” cards in hit pieces, and hope 50.1%+ of the populace would fail to notice the predictably nasty real-world consequences, or else blame the wrong people?

    God, I hate every one of those fuckers who voted for this miserable law.

    1. It may be that they were banking on either 1) insurers complying without any substantial policy changes or, if that fails 2) a public showdown with insurers.

      1. How’d that public showdown over the impact of Obamacare with Caterpillar and the rest of those guys work out for the Ds? Oh, yeah, they saw the impending beating and said “never mind.”

        It takes a special kind incompetence, hubris, and ignorance to make insurance companies look like the sympathetic characters but these loons are apparently up to the challenge.

      2. I’m thinking it’s (2).

        Who are the American people going to believe, the greedy insurance companies or selfless public servants? When the hydrogen sulfide hits the fan, this will be an excellent opportunity for the Dems to argue for getting rid of insurers once and for all by switching to single-payer. After all, they tried to compromise with the greedy capitalists, but you know those capitalists like to play dirty.

  4. Frankly, the solution to this is to have the government provide free insurance for all (note: different than the government providing health care itself), paid for via taxes. But that is politically unfeasable.

    So, the choices are games like this, or letting sick people die (or go bankrupt, or get half treated) because they can’t afford treatment.

    Libertarians think sick kids should die if their parents can’t afford treatment.

    1. Geotpf,

      Do you understand the difference between helping those in need and being forced to give money to an inefficient agency (under threat of prison time) in order to help some of those in need?

      Do you understand that? DO YOU?

      WTF IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE?!

      1. Voluntary charity will not cover every poor kid that needs a hundred thousand dollar operation.

        1. Voluntary charity will not cover every poor kid that needs a hundred thousand dollar operation.

          Nope. And Africans and Asians are starving on their farms.

          What is your point, exactly?

        2. Oh yes it fucking will. DO THE MATH.

          If every household who voted for the dems gave 5-7% of their income, they could cover themselves and all uninsured people without any co-pays ever. We’re talking Billions and Billions of $ per year to cover this cost.

          Why don’t you do that instead of forcing others to participate?

          1. Exactly. Not hard to do, either. If everybody who loves national health care got together and set up a non-profit, they could easily fund insurance and medical care for the poor and not so poor.

            They won’t do that though because deep inside their black little hearts they figure national health care will be paid for by someone besides themselves. They figure that they’ll be the free rider and some rich guy will pay for it.

            1. That’s what I’ve been saying for YEARS. There is no argument to refute it because it is the truth.

          2. We don’t want to pay for our health care. That’s the Republican’s responsibility.

          3. We don’t want to pay for our health care. That’s the Republican’s responsibility.

        3. If sufficient people aren’t willing to voluntarily support such a cause,
          why should government force all people to support it? Isn’t this a
          democrary?

          1. Because politician’s and liberal’s definition of “sufficient” varies markedly from your definition and my definition.

            And the whole point of majoritarian democracy IS to force political minorities to get screwed over by majorities.

        4. Have you heard of “pro bono”

          Also, did it ever occur to you that if the government did not allow the AMA to limit the number of medical schools that we would have more doctors and medical costs would drop?
          FDA rules such as those enacted in the mid-80’s (just to name one of thousands) to treat chemical enantiomers as separate drugs have also had a huge effect on costs. If policies you favor had not been passed over the last 50 years, costs would be way down. The practice of having employers cover medical care arose out of wage controls FDR put in place and disconnect consumers from pricing decisions. Just look at Lazik surgery which behaves like other commodities in free markets. Costs are dropping here.

          Why do you want to condemn people to poorer health care? If you don’t understand the issues more than “the govt. needs to do this, the govt. needs to do that”, then leave the thinking to the grown-ups.

          1. I thougth his name was Sonny, not pro…

    2. Obvious troll is obvious.

      1. I’m not trolling. The last statement is a statement of fact. Libertarians don’t think the government should tax people (being forced to give money to an inefficient agency (under threat of prison time), as Spencer Smith said) to pay for sick kids treatment.

        1. Concern troll is concerned.

          1. Troll troll is trolling for trolls.

        2. Yep,

          But that doesn’t stop the approx 50% of American’s who think they should. So, why don’t you just pool together and pay for it. That solves the problem with NO force needed.

          1. “That solves the problem with NO force needed.”

            Now you’ve gone and taken all the fun out of it.

        3. Geotpf,

          Yes, you are right. I admitted it downthread. People who cannot afford cars can take the bus, walk, or hope that someone is nice enough to give them a car. People who cannot afford to eat can go to the soup kitchen. And, people who cannot afford health care, can hope for charity and the goodwill of their friends, family and neighbors, but, if that breaks down, then, yes, they die.

          The alternatives are worse.

          1. Ayn_Randian, damn your quick fingers!

          2. One doesn’t die if one doesn’t have a car. One dies if one is sick and doesn’t have an operation.

            Now, there’s a fundamental philosophical difference of opinion. Some people are in favor of governmental support of medical care for sick kids, some people would perfer them to die than to have their money take from them via force (taxes). But pretending the specifics of the program that Libertarians hate matter, as this piece does, is intellecutually dishonest. The thing is, yelling from the rooftops that sick kids should die doesn’t win over too many people to your cause, so you all usually pretend that that’s not the case.

            1. NO ONE is yelling that sick kids should die. What is being said is that some sick kids die. Some of these deaths could have been prevented. This is inevitable. If you want to try to solve the problem, do it. However, you are limited in your efforts by the idea that taking money from me by force is theft. You can try to convince me all you want that I SHOULD give money. Make a good argument and I might volunteer some cash. However, starting with the threat of punishment is a NO GO.

              1. not so fast…
                ATTENTION ALL SICK KIDS…DIE
                there I said it

              2. But why would you assume that theft is worse than allowing a kid to die? WTF?

                1. Because you can steal everything and kids will still die. And they’ll keep dying, and they’ll keep stealing.

            2. Where do you draw the line, Geotpf? Food? Clothing? Shelter? Should all of those be provided by The State?

              1. Yup, certain minimal levels. Didn’t Hayek agree with this btw?

                1. Hayek was wrong about a lot of shit, because he didn’t give up all of his socialism.

            3. One doesn’t die if one doesn’t have a car. One dies if one is sick and doesn’t have an operation.

              What about food? Shelter?

              See, when you say “should”, you say it as if that is what we want to have happen in a “cosmic justice” sense, as if we hate children or something. I say that if it came down to enslaving doctors and the taxpayers of America to a sick child, then, yes, I prefer to see that child die.

              And isn’t it funny how your types always rely on “children”? WTF is the matter with adults that you never use them (oh, wait, unless it’s the elderly, that is).

              Illness in children happens. It is no one’s fault, and no one should be forced to pay for it.

              And until such time as you advocate Americans handing over 90% of their wealth to pay for worldwide healthcare, you know that in your heart I am right.

            4. One doesn’t die if one doesn’t have a car. One dies if one is sick and doesn’t have an operation.

              You’re ignoring all the sick people who die under socialized medicine.

              You can’t legislate away the fact that some people are going to die no matter what you do because there is an optimal allocation of resources that minimizes death, and any other system causes more deaths, and no system results in no one ever dying.

              Your retarded “solution” causes more deaths overall.

              Why do you hate sick people so much?

              1. That’s something that I still don’t understand: Liberals want to save everybody (on everyone else’s dime), then bitch because people consume to many resources and pollute too much.

            5. Fuck you, you dishonest piece of shit. Government is not the be-all end-all of civil society. Yeah, we don’t want the government to steal from everybody to pay for shitty health care for sick kids. But we also aren’t stopping anybody from providing treatment if they feel like it. Has any libertarian come out and said “sick kids with parents who can’t afford treatment shouldn’t get treatment from any source”? No? Then shut the fuck up. You want sick kids to get treated, stroke a check to the fucking Shriners or St. Jude.

              1. Why should sick kids in the US get treatment and sick kids in Ethiopia die? Is that fair? Where are your morals? There are 2 billion children on the planet without healthcare. Why would you advocate that only the paltry couple million US kids without private insurance get taxpayer funded healthcare. If a moral obligation to prevent sick kids from dieing is your yardstick, there certainly isn’t any room for you to have a car while there are kids in Ethiopia without access to CAT scans. What claim do you have on that bottle of Sonoma Valley wine while there is a kid in Somalia without proper access to gamma knife cancer therapy? In fact, why should you have anything above a subsistence diet and barracks living quarters while there is a single child on planet earth without the latest in modern healthcare?

                Or is your moral compass a little more broken than you’d like to pretend?

                1. There’s only one civilized way to approach this issue, and that’s with the intention of arriving at a compromise. We should let some children die, and some people keep their money. Now we just have to talk figures.

        4. But not because we want people to die. But rather because the consequences of trying to keep anything bad from happening in the world results in more bad things happening.

    3. Frankly, the “solution” to this is to have the government provide free insurance for all, and ignore the obvious, completely foreseeable and pointed in great detail, “unintended” and much worse, consequences of that idiotic idea.

      Fixed.

      Oh, and you’re welcome!

    4. Don’t fret, Geo. The world is not about to end and nobody is going to die because of this. Poor* kids will still be covered by Medicaid, and those who do not qualify and who do not have coverage will get all emergency treatment anyway, just as they have been doing all along. The providers will simply shift that unrecovered cost on to others, as they have always done. What the insurers are doing here is making sure the others in their risk pools are not the only ones who pay for the known losses by those who will game the system. They are spreading the risk, as it were.

      *”Poor” is increasingly being legislated up, with 4x the poverty level of $22,000 now qualifying for the state-linked Medicaid program, at least here in the Cheese state.

    5. TANSTAAFL. Or health insurance.

      Do you have a legal guardian? If not, seek one out before making any important decisions..

      1. TANSTAAFL

        Really, that should have been the first and last response.

        Nothing more needs to be said.

    6. Libertarians think sick kids should die if their parents can’t afford treatment.

      Only if I get to eat them after they die.

    7. Only sick minority kids and elderly kids.

  5. Speaking of crapweasels, that Ethan Rome clown certainly fits the bill.

    “Mein Gott, these insurers reacted in an entirely rational and predictable way to our diktat! How dare they try to stay solvent!”

  6. “In some ways, it’s a small change: Child-only policies currently comprise less than 10 percent of the individual market, and insurers will still cover children, including those with preexisting conditions, in policies that aren’t strictly child-only.”

    10 percent of the market is huge from a competitive standpoint.

    Margins are thin in competitive industries; if 10 percent of your local grocery store’s customers suddenly became a huge liability, they’d need to fundamentally alter something.

    Prices are set on the forward looking margin. 10% is a huge margin looking forward. If 10% of their margin looking forward just became largely unprofitable, that’s really bad news for the other 90% of their customers.

    1. Ken,

      It’s 10 percent of the individual market, which, while important, typically represents only (roughly) about 5% of the health insurance market in any given state.

      1. Thanks for the correction.

        You know the old saying about how the unemployment rate is 100% when you’re the one who’s unemployed?

        As someone who developed a permanent preexisting condition while self-employed, I suppose I may wrongly assume that there are a lot more people out there like me.

        It certainly seems that the ObamaCare solutions are supposed to be pitched to me–an individual who couldn’t get insurance because of a preexisting condition. Over the past year or so, by the way, the cost of my medications have soared from, out of pocket, about $1,000 a month to about $2,000 a month out of pocket.

        I finally happened on a policy, but my 30% monthly contribution to my prescription costs is still over $600 a month with the soaring cost of the medication.

        It’s about $250 a month for the same prescription from Mexico or Canada–I have coverage for other ailments now, but minus the premiums, I’d have done better for the first couple of years without buying insurance…

        So, anyway, like I said, maybe I’m overestimating how many individuals and self-employed people there were like me out there, who can’t get insurance because of a preexisting condition and can’t afford their medications without buying it from Canada or Mexico…

        But just in case anyone else out there cares–ObamaCare seems to be making life a lot harder for people with preexisting conditions who have to pay through the nose for their medications. For those who thought ObamaCare would actually help individuals like myself–the facts contradict that narrative.

        Keep up the good work, Mr. Suderman.

  7. Funny how you never hear even folks as stupid as Democrats argue that those who are standing beside their totaled car should be able to pick up the phone and get retroactive insurance.

    So, if they get it in that example, why can’t they get it in this one?

    1. Oh yeah?

      When I was young, just got out of college, I had to buy auto insurance. I had a beat-up old car. And I won’t name the name of the insurance company, but there was a company ? let’s call it Acme Insurance in Illinois. And I was paying my premiums every month. After about six months I got rear-ended and I called up Acme and said, I’d like to see if I can get my car repaired, and they laughed at me over the phone because really this was set up not to actually provide insurance; what it was set up was to meet the legal requirements. But it really wasn’t serious insurance.

      Now, it’s one thing if you’ve got an old beat-up car that you can’t get fixed. It’s another thing if your kid is sick, or you’ve got breast cancer. – Barack Obama

      1. So Obama was an idiot in college. Not surprising. This dumbass high schooler fucking knew that his coverage only included liability, that if somebody totalled or stole his car he was shit out of luck.

        Nobody but morons pay for collision on fucking junkers.

        1. I can’t imagine he’s that stupid. He’s probably just lying again…it would be interesting to look this incident up, as accidents are a matter of public record.

      2. Wait, I have no idea if this story is real, but if so, it doesn’t make any sense.

        Illinois requires you to buy liability insurance. Which means you cover the person you hit. So the person who hit Barry should be the one with the insurance that covers Barry’s jalopy. Barry’s insurance only covers the person he hit in an at-fault incident.

      3. Wait a minute, he expected to get his car fixed with a liability policy? And it never occured to him to make a claim with the guy who rear-ended him?

        Either you made that quote up or the President of the USofA admitted to the nation that he is a DUMBASS and none (except you) noticed. Coz, I’m still hearing people say how lucky we are to have this towering intellect in charge.

        1. Well, it is possible that he was rear-ended by an uninsured motorist, and hadn’t purchased coverage for that.

          Or he is lying and making all this up, hoping no one will check to see what actually happened.

          Or, Obama was found at fault, and decided to not mention that because it screws up the narrative.

          So many possibilities when you’re dealing with a compulsive liar who doesn’t understand insurance.

          1. Occam’s razor…Barry O is a crap-weasel.

            1. 1. One who skillfully cheats, usually a board games. 2. One who challenges novices to games he has mastered, and beats them, showing no mercy.

              crapweasel?

          2. Last time I checked, Uninsured Motorists coverage only applies to injury, not property damge. Or, at least, that’s how it works in Florida.

            Other states my have different policies, of course, since insurance is a state matter.

            1. Health insurance once was too.

        2. It’s not made up. He said this at the health care summit earlier this year.

      4. LOL, did the people who think Obama is the smartest man alive hear this story?

      5. So Barry O is a retard who doesn’t understand how insurance works.

        This is starting to make sense.

    2. cause driving is, you know, a priveledge! (sarcasm)

  8. Frankly, the solution to this is to have the government provide free insurance for all (note: different than the government providing health care itself), paid for via taxes.

    If we are paying for it through taxes, how is it free?

    1. Because GEOtpf is retarded, apparently. That’s surely retarded math.

    2. “”If we are paying for it through taxes, how is it free?””

      If your income is low enough where you’re not paying taxes. It’s free.

      1. For you anyway.

    3. Obviously, taxes on some (rich) people would be higher than on others.

      1. Which leads to the inevitable question: Who is rich? What’s the income level?

        Also, what about differences in what makes one ‘rich’ from place to place? Someone making $250k in rural Kansas is rich. Someone making $250k in Manhattan is middle class. How do you handle that disparity?

        1. Don’t ask the retard to explain a position. It’s just repeating things it doesn’t understand.

          They always run away when the questions get difficult.

      2. But Geotpf, then it isn’t free.

        You keep saying “free healthcare”. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

      3. OK, you want to raise taxes on “the rich.” Got it.

        You still haven’t explained where the free health care comes from.

  9. So, the choices are games like this, or letting sick people die (or go bankrupt, or get half treated) because they can’t afford treatment.

    Libertarians think sick kids should die if their parents can’t afford treatment.

    You know what? Yes, unfortunately, I do, because the alternatives are worse.

    After all, isn’t the *United States* “letting” *Africans* die because *Africans* cannot afford food and HIV treatments? Do you propose a global tax to take care of the world’s poorest?

    1. We’re all death panalists now.

    2. I’m a little more concerned with poor Americans than poor Africans. Take care of your own, as it were. But, yeah, US foreign aid for such is a good thing.

      1. I’m a little more concerned with poor Americans than poor Africans

        Why?

        Take care of your own, as it were.

        Americans are not “my own”. I should not be forced to take care of other Americans. That is actually antithetical to the ideal of America in the first place.

        1. Because everyone knows that an American life is worth the most of all.

      2. Ah ha ha, nationalist troll is nationalist. You can’t make this stuff up!

      3. Oh, so you want Africans to die if they can’t afford treatment? You’re a racist, that’s what you’re saying?

        1. Begrudgingly, it admits it’s racist, as well as nationalist.

      4. Fuck you. You arent part of “my own”.

      5. I’m a little more concerned with poor me and members of my family than “Americans”. Where do you draw the line?

        Rah! Rah! Solidarity with people within 1000 mile radius, or a 3000 mile radius is equally stupid.

        1. ^^ This.

          If people take care of their own, they will provide what is needed for their friends/family/community. This does not extend to someone 2000 miles away on the other side of the country who I have never and will never meet.

    3. “”After all, isn’t the *United States* “letting” *Africans* die because *Africans* cannot afford food and HIV treatments?”””

      We have been sending them food and medicine for decades, if they are still dying it’s their fault. 😉

    4. “So, the choices are games like this, or letting sick people die (or go bankrupt, or get half treated) because they can’t afford treatment.”

      If facts won’t change your preconceptions, then your problem may require some kind of medical treatment.

      The fact is that, as Suderman’s post shows, ObamaCare is making treatment less available to children than it was before–and it’s making treatment less affordable for all of us.

      If your preconceptions don’t change despite that fact? Like I said, your condition may be treatable, and then again, maybe not. Right off the top of my head, I can think of a couple of untreatable conditions that could account for that.

      1. Look at them backpedal when it’s announced that the Democrat’s health care bill is going to kill children!

        Watch the distraction!

        Witches!!!

        O’Donnell may be a nutter, but she’s never enacted legislation that threatens the health of children.

  10. Well, surprise, surprise, surprise!

  11. Frankly, the solution to this is to have the government provide free insurance for all (note: different than the government providing health care itself), paid for via taxes. But that is politically unfeasable.

    So, the choices are games like this, or letting sick people die (or go bankrupt, or get half treated) because they can’t afford treatment.

    Libertarians think sick kids should die if their parents can’t afford treatment.

    Actually, the ony true solution is to cut out all this complicated middleman stuff: Simply enslave all doctors and make them provide health care without charging anything for it. Anyone can then get all the health care they need without worrying about cost. Problem solved.

    1. A steady diet of rice and bananas should keep them sharp enough to still save lives.

      1. And a tree to climb on?

    2. Doctors Don’t have to be slaves and work for free.

      We can keep a free market so that doctors can charge what they’d like and people that can afford to pay can go to them.

      For the people who can’t, and can prove that they can’t, we have medicaid.

      What we should do with Medicaid and Medicare recipients is make them go to MAYO clinics or government run clinics like MAYO clinics where the providers are all employees and are not profit driven. Don’t open these to the general public, just to the elderly, the poor, and children.

    3. “Actually, the ony true solution is to cut out all this complicated middleman stuff: Simply enslave all doctors and make them provide health care without charging anything for it. Anyone can then get all the health care they need without worrying about cost. Problem solved.”

      We could stop calling them “prisons” and start calling them “hospitals”…

      Thanks, Stevo!

      1. I guess it would be the other way around…

        You turn the “hospital” into a prison.

        Don’t want to have to train those prisoners–when the hospital personnel are already trained!

  12. The Solution is simple.

    – The rich have money to pay for premiums and treatment

    – The poor have medicaid. A public option for poor people that will probably never go away without blood on the streets.

    – The middle class, once they’ve unloaded their homes, quit their job, and declared bankruptcy will be eligible for medicaid.

    1. Jesus, what a whiney little bitch you are.

      1. Seconded.

  13. An immediate switch to single-payer is politically impossible, so it must be done in steps.

    The first step is to impose rules on existing insurance that forces them to do things like drop child-only insurance policies.

    That allows politicians to vilify the insurance companies and sell legislation as the solution, neglecting of course to mention that legislation created the problem.

    The worst part is that it will probably work.

  14. I taped some interviews with people in town who were supporting the healthcare bill when the votes were coming down, and I asked the pro-Obamacare folks this simple question:

    If insurers are required to cover pre-existing conditions, who should pay for health insurance at all when I’m not sick? Why not just wait until I get sick and then buy insurance?

    The results were hilarious, but no one wanted to let me post their response online. I don’t blame them. They sounded dumber than Max.

    1. Obama ran on the Robin Hood platform. They expect the rich to get robbed and the money given to them.

  15. The Solution is simple.

    – The rich have money to pay for premiums and treatment

    – The poor have medicaid

    – The middle class, once they’ve unloaded their homes, quit their job, and declared bankruptcy will be eligible for medicaid.

  16. Having just got off the phone with a Dr.’s office as I was trying to make an appointment for my mother-in-law (you know, elderly people do not like change and are stubborn and do not react well to having to visit too many specialists), I am pretty well fed up with the whole medical insurance system. Of course the companies are blaming their greedy actions on President Obama’s health plan.

    This Dr.’s office first had me talk to the intake team, who would not set up an appointment or even proceed without first knowing the insurance company providing coverage. First to determine if she was in the network, second to satisfy the needs of their computerized system-no name of insurer, cannot make an appointment. I explained she was covered and not limited to a network, but they got snitty and lectured me on how I might think that but that I could not possible know that. Idiots. So I had to call back after collecting the new information. Then I was lectured because I cut off the explanation of the process, which I had already heard, and the lady got real snitty again, using those new techniques the telephone people are taught to try and control the customer/caller instead of just doing the job and making an appointment. Finally got it done. In my humble opinion, if the new health program did away with all health insurance companies, policies, etc, and we only had one provider, we would save billions on unneeded medical coders, medical software for specific insurance companies, all of the unneeded insurance sales people, insurance forms, time to fill out various different forms etc. This would drive down cost dramatically. We do not need insurance companies to get their greedy fingers on our medical money. Yes, it would put a lot of people out of work.

    Anyway, eliminate the insurance companies and we will save billions per year.

    1. And if we have only one grocery provider, we can eliminate “duplicative” grocery-bagger jobs, cahsier jobs, management, both junior and senior, and “save” “billions”.

      Oh, and then, one car manufacturer! Think of the advertising savings alone!

      Then, a national uniform! “We’d” “save” billions on profligate waste like fancy dressin’ clothes. And think of the time savings!

      1. Hey, this might work:

        http://www.apparelsearch.com/definitions/DEFINITION IMAGES/Mao Suit.jpg

        Look for the union label!

      2. He’s on to something here (or on something).

        Why not start consolidating all the government programs?

        We could save trillions!

        Imagine filing your taxes at the IRS/DMV/Water&Power;/Mayor’s Office/Courthouse/Fire/Police/Falafel restaurant building?

        Cut government 90% and only have to deal with it once a year.

    2. quick poll:

      Would you rather:

      a. make a doctors apointment through an insurance provider

      b. go to the dmv to get a new driver’s license.

      1. c. get kicked in the groin.

        1. d. get ass fucked by a biker

          1. d.

            definitely d.

      2. Why can’t I do both at the same time?

    3. Having spent a good bit of my professional career in a “customer service” job which requires inputting a lot of information into a system that is somewhat picky, I can spot an ignorant ass from a mile away. You’re an ignorant ass.

      The snitty person whom you interrupted while they were trying to do their job and service your needs does that stupid thing because when you, inevitably, skip a step in your “I know better than you” rush, they, or someone like them, will need to help you unfuck the fuck-up that wouldn’t have happened if you’d slowed your roll for a minute.

      1. Bullshit. Here’s how the conversation could have gone:

        “Yes, I’d like to make an appointment for my mother-in-law.”
        “What day and time, sir?”
        “Tomorrow at 11:00 if that’s ok.”
        “Well, how about 11:30?”
        “11:30 would be fine.”
        “And could you please show up about 30 minutes early with her insurance information? It will help speed up the intake process. Thanks so much and we’ll see you both tomorrow.”
        “Thanks, see you then.”

        1. That’s how it went at my doctor’s office. Maybe the receptionist knew that I was one of those evil libertarians.

    4. Nobody is forced to use health insurance. Pay in cash.

      1. Actually there are some medical care providers, especially walk-in clinics, that absolutely will not take you in without proof of insurance that they accept.

        But how we got to this point is far more complex than Akla is willing to understand.

        1. Oh bullshit. I’m sure if you walk in with a brief case full of hundred dollar bills they’ll fucking treat you. The rest is just negotiation.

        2. When I adopted a kid, there was a brief window where we couldn’t access his medicaid (mighta’ve violated the confidentiality of his biological parents) and we didn’t have him enrolled in my insurance plan, but still needed to get some tests run by doctors.

          Three different docs (one working for a county health clinic) shot us down. No insurance, no blood draw. One had the balls to tell me that I should be supporting Obamacare because it will eliminate these problems. I pointed out that I had a fistful of cash that easily covers a blood draw and lab test, but he wouldn’t allow his staff to take my filthy dollars and do the damn thing.

          1. The law requires him to accept cash for all debts both public and private. You should sue that piece of shit.

            1. ^^ this. Says it right on the bill –

              “This note is legal tender in all debts both public and private”

            2. Legal tender laws don’t require him to let you become indebted to him. He does have the right to refuse to contract with you.

          2. There is no reason why insurance should be used to pay for simple services like tests in the first place. The fact that it is, is a result of over regulation.

      2. Good luck not getting raped by the medical provider. There’s no such thing as a cash discount, which if that doesn’t tell you how effed up our health care industry is, nothing will.

        1. There are deep cash discounts. My wife the physician negotiates them all the time, especially if the patient is poor and respectful.

          It does take some negotiating skills, though. If you’re the type of person who pays $3K over MSRP for a new car, good luck with that.

          1. The above was me — forgot to change a humorous spoof tag about Tony above.

    5. Of course the companies are blaming their greedy actions on President Obama’s health plan.

      I’ve see the word “greedy” a lot around the intarweb this morning in relation to the news that insurers are dropping child-only policies. Can we unpack that a bit?

      Insurance companies are choosing to avoid transactions that result in losing money. They could continue to offer child-only policies, but they’re not doing it because it’s unprofitable. This is termed “greed.”

      Okay, let’s assume that “greedy” is the appropriate adjective for this action. My question for you is: “aren’t you just as greedy?”

      How many childhood leukemia treatments have you paid for? How many times have you picked up the cost of an emergency room visit for a child who broke his arm on the playground? How many nights in the hospital have you paid for on behalf of a child who needs a kidney transplant?

      I’m guessing that the number is zero. Why haven’t you done any of this? It’s simple: you care about your bottom line more than you care about sick kids, you greedy bastard.

      1. I’m not greedy! i voted for them to use your money, didn’t I?

    6. Alka:

      I’m sorry that you had an unpleasant experience with your doctor’s office due to the policies of your health insurer. Making appointments with doctors is a pain in the ass, and health insurance companies are generally awful to deal with.

      As a solution, you’re proposing more government involvement. Has it occurred to you that you’re experiencing frustration with the most highly regulated sector of the economy? Do you realize that the government has placed burdensome restrictions and incentives for doctors, insurers, hospitals, employers, and patients at virtually every turn? Have you noticed that the government regulates the health industry more and more every year, and the frustration and prices of health care increase every year?

      I know it’s hard to get an appointment with a doctor at a convenient time, primarily because we don’t have enough doctors. And we don’t have enough doctors because the government keeps the supply of physicians artificially low.

      You should be able to stroll into a doctor’s office and pay a reasonable amount of cash for a simple check-up. But you can’t, because the government has set up incentives for insurance companies to pay for things that true “insurance” was never intended to cover. In most states you can no longer buy a policy that only covers catastrophic injury or illness. No, the insurance companies are required by law to cover annual check-ups. As a patient, you don’t see the true price of these check-ups; you just show up for your ten-dollar visit. When everybody does that it’s no wonder that trying to get an appointment is an ordeal.

      We’ve been trying increased regulation for decades, and the costs and frustrations of getting health care climb ever higher. How about trying the opposite direction for a change?

    7. There is probably a regulation that requires them, by law, to recite a litany of facts to you. To make sure you are ‘informed’. If they don’t read you this crap, they can be fined or sued.

  17. So, does this mean I can buy federal flood insurance right before the hurricane hits?

    1. I was scheduled to close on my house the day Hurricane Ike made landfall. My insurance agent called us up the day before and said “yeah, not happening. The company won’t write the policy”.

      Why people think health insurance should work differently is beyond me.

  18. This was not a foreseeable consequence to most Democrats. The day this bill passed one of my most liberal friends had the celebratory facebook posting. There must have been fifty comments from her liberals friends. At least a fourth of them talked about how this meant that sick kids would no longer be denied insurance. Not a single person brought up the possibility of insurance companies just discontinuing coverage for kids.

    This provision was well known during the debate of this bill. Think about it, during the endless Reason threads discussing this bill, did a single liberal poster ever express concern that requiring coverage for pre-existing conditions would cause insurance companies to deny coverage altogether? If there was, they were few and far between. I really think liberals are legitimately shocked by this development.

    1. These are folks for whom results are not as important as intentions. They intended for the children to be brought insurance on the backs of unicorns, and figure that’s how Obamacare should be judged. Any real-world consequences are just the fault of those greedy capitalists, or failing that it’s Bush’s fault.

      1. Sad but true.

      2. Recall, if you will, Henry “Nostrildamus” Waxman wanting to subpeona all those companies that were filing 8-Ks in response to the passage of Obamacare, which they were in fact required to do by law under the Securities Exchange Act.

        It’s getting increasingly difficult to believe that these results are unintentional, however. Pelosi’s cynical “we have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it” comment should have given that game away.

      3. In liberal land, people are supposed to do as they’re told. They’re not supposed to adapt in response to incentives.

    2. We passed this wonderful new law, and even still, the insurance companies are doing everything they can to destroy it and make sure affordable care FOR EVERYONE doesn’t become reality.

    3. In college, I met a girl who argued the Government should make it illegal to import diamonds from South Africa. I responded that since diamonds and money are largely fungible, this would make little difference to South Africa.

      “Well, they should pass a law to make money non-fungible,” was her response.

      Umm, yeah, they’re working on it.

    4. I agree. They are just that stupid.

  19. You hate them because you are one of them You’re probably sitting there right now on a chair made of the skulls of the innocent children who died when you callously denied their rightful claim to health insurance. I hope your eyebrows catch on fire when you light your fancy cigars with hundred dollar bills.

    Racist.

  20. In my humble opinion, if the new health program did away with all health insurance companies, policies, etc, and we only had one provider, we would save billions on unneeded medical coders, medical software for specific insurance companies, all of the unneeded insurance sales people, insurance forms, time to fill out various different forms etc.

    So who do you propose should handle the medical billing then?

    Surely you’re not arguing that THE GOVERNMENT could do this more efficiently?

    Think about it.

  21. Hey, we already have free public healthcare, its called the emergency room, and its probably the most expensive, and least effective from anyones POV way to provide it.

    Health insurance is the problem, not any part of the solution. If you have “good” insurance its not even really “insurance” anymore, instead its just massively subsidized care (which leads of course to massively higher consumption). If you don’t, you pay thru the ass instead.

    The whole system is so corrupted with fucked up incentives it will end up being a government system in the end. I mean, is there any conceivable way the existing cluster-fuck system can reform itself? I don’t see it, the patient has cancer and its metasticized. Tag him and bag him, he’s dead Jim.

    1. Here’s an idea-

      Get to gether with a few hundred of your neighbors and hire a doctor and nurses directly. Pay for it and then no insurance needed except for emergency care, surgery, and drugs.

      NOTHING is stopping you from doing this.

      1. Oh, *I* will stop you from doing that.

      2. What kind of a libertarian even has a few hundred neighbors, much less would even consider talking to them?

        1. Does that mean that you don’t have a reason why you aren’t going to do this?

          Even if you pay the tax penalty, you’ll probably still come out ahead.

          1. I’m actually a lucky bastard with “good” health insurance but despite my good fortune, its ludicrous we don’t bear a larger share of costs for medical procedures than we do.

            And its not like “organizing several hundred” neighbors is a cost-free (or frankly, attainable, as if people will agree to share one doctor, not have pre-existing conditions that are non-negotiable to them, etc.) endeavor, even if I wasn’t an introverted misanthrope. I mean, holy detached idealists, batman! I’m a libertarian not a community organizer.

            1. I don’t think it would be that hard. I’m just lazy.

      3. unless you live in Massachusetts. You can no longer purchase insurance for only “emergency care, surgery and drugs”. Have to either purchase coverage that exceeds those minimums, or self-insure entirely and pay a penalty (tax) at tax time.
        And of course, soon this will apply to the entire country.

      4. boutique care. it’s been happening and will continue. especially if (when) Congress punts on the SGR fix again.

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..03519.html

    2. The whole system is so corrupted with fucked up incentives it will end up being a government system in the end.

      So it’s so screwed up, the only alternative is to replace it with something worse?

      1. Well, yes. You need to understand Masturbatin’ Pete’s First Law of Regulation:

        No matter how regulated an industry, all problems arising out of that industry will be successfully blamed solely on its unregulated components.”

  22. “if the new health program did away with all health insurance companies, policies, etc, and we only had one provider, we would save billions on unneeded medical coders, medical software for specific insurance companies, all of the unneeded insurance sales people, insurance forms, time to fill out various different forms etc. This would drive down cost dramatically.”

    Absolutely true, year one. Try projecting it out for 100 years and start thinking about what happens when the company your doctor works for has a monopoly. Think they might raise prices just a bit?

    1. And, there would be massive job growth for morticians.

      This would be a better stimulus than the stimulus!!!

  23. How come no one asks about me anymore?

    1. Maybe because rational people know that a child ceases to be a child after the age of eighteen?

  24. Hate to sound like a conspiracy-theorist here, but this one seems obvious.

    Less than 2 weeks ago, Sebelius came out and threatened to pull out the proverbial banhammer on any company they thought were raising premiums too much. She never talked about profit margins, she just leveled the empty threat. Now this story breaks and I am fully prepared to hear Gibbs or some other WH flack come out in the next day or two vilifying insurers for dropping child coverages. Next will be their media blitz about how the best intentioned plans (Obamacare) can be undone by corporate greed and regulation is the only safeguard for “teh childruns.” They will admit some minor tweaks in the legislation may be needed, but the greedy insurance companies are using this transition to gouge the poor and middle class, which was why the reform was needed in the first place.

    They said they had a strategy for highlighting their accomplishments before the midterms. Well, ladies and gentlemen, this is their strategy. Play the class warfare game once more to stir up their base. And by base, I mean ignorant lemmings that believe all things are best left to the government.

    1. Wow, you really think they are cynical enough about the intelligence level of 50.1% of the populace to think that will turn out well politically?

      1. You talk as though this is an unwise assuption to make.

        No one in this world, so far as I know – and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me – has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people.

        1. Mencken has been proven right by at least half the presidential elections contested during my lifetime. 🙂

            1. You’re probably right. 🙂

            2. Yep, still no LP president.

      2. See my comment above re: Pelosi.

        There’s no way she would have said something that insulting if she didn’t believe that most people wouldn’t call her on it.

  25. In my humble opinion, if the new health program did away with all health insurance companies, policies, etc, and we only had one provider, we would save billions on unneeded medical coders, medical software for specific insurance companies, all of the unneeded insurance sales people, insurance forms, time to fill out various different forms etc.

    Right. It could be like CMS. You know, the same CMS that’s hundreds of billions in deficit and loses millions in fraud every year because it doesn’t audit claims. What could go wrong?

  26. “They [insurers] don’t like the rules, so they’re going to take their ball and go home,” he told NPR.”

    Life imitates Rand. The forces of capitalism disappear into the gulch, and so the regulators go on public radio to demonize them…

    You know the thing that’s really painful about all this? Is that it really does seem like a surprise to the Obama Administration every time people react to market forces–that’s the most disturbing thing of all…

    Say what you will about people who think Econ 101 is the solution to everything–if the guy designing the bridge doesn’t seem to know anything about Structural Engineering 101?

    We need to use a different architect.

    1. Life imitates Rand. The forces of capitalism disappear into the gulch, and so the regulators go on public radio to demonize them..

      I’ll be bookmarking this for reference, Ken. It bears repeating as often as possible.

    2. Responding to market forces is greedy, you selfish asshole!

  27. If I were in the health care insurance business, I would switch from that business to getting into the single payer, socialized medicine advocacy business. Easier to make money as a non-profit, all you need is to hire a few insider lawyers to write up the grant applications, and there is far less legal liability when the government is your backer instead of at your back.
    Yep, that is the sweet life, everything else is for suckers.

  28. Man up and die, people. Man up and die.

  29. “They [insurers] don’t like the rules, so they’re going to take their ball and go home.”

    Duh. Who wants to play a game that you can’t possibly win?

    If the gaming authorities in Nevada required casinos to allow all card-counters to play blackjack, the casinos would quit spreading blackjack … at least with normal rules. To continue spreading the game, the casino would have to modify the blackjack rules to eliminate the card-counter’s advantage.

    If the casino can’t change the rules, it quits spreading the game. If it does change the rules, the rule changes necessarily impair the payout for all blackjack players, and blackjack becomes less popular among non-counting players.

    It’s arguable that medical insurance is more socially beneficial than blackjack, but the games have quit a bit in common.

    Neither insurers nor casinos are in the business of taking sucker bets. They’ll offer them, but they won’t take them.

  30. They won’t do that though because deep inside their black little hearts they figure national health care will be paid for by someone besides themselves. They figure that they’ll be the free rider and some rich guy will pay for it.

    This needs to be displayed in flashing lights somewhere.

    Of course, under single-payer, they also need to hope that they will be one of the lottery winners who get on the list to get the limited number of treatments available.

    In these people’s eyes, being a lottery winner is so much more noble than being able to pay for what you get.

    1. And, to get around the waiting list, those that can afford it will take a vacation in India, Mexico, or Southeast Asia and get the procedure done there. The wealthy and well-connected just skip the rationing inflicted on the poor and middle class, as happens in all societies with socialized medicine.

  31. Everybody see the title for the NPR-linked piece?: “Health Insurers Skirt New Coverage Requirement For Kids”

    Glad my tax dollars are going to these ass monkeys so they can write propaganda to convince all the morons that more of my money should be taken.

    Hey FUCKHEADs: they aren’t “skirting” anything. Since you have unconstitutionally outlawed the provision of economically viable child-only insurance, they have decided to …. you know … obey the law.

    1. My thoughts exactly.
      They wrote a foolish regulation, accused anyone who pointed it out of being mean-spirited racists, and now are shocked that insurers are complying in the only way that still allows them to stay in business.
      The question for me is- did they plan it this way so that now they can push for greater takeover, or were they really incapable of foreseeing this consequence?

  32. Sweet, CrackertyAss. In a just world, the headlines would be “ObamaCare Outlaws Viable Child-Only Insurance – Thousand of Sick Children to Lose Coverage.”

    1. Ah, but in this brave world the following equation works:

      criticism + obama = racism
      racism > [any sin you can name]

      1. [any sin you can name]

        even sodomy!?

        1. unless it’s with someone especially hot

        2. how about pederasty? bestiality? mopery & dopery?

  33. I would have just given it the headline: “Dissection Fails To Uncover Golden Eggs; Greedy Goose Blamed”

  34. Taking money from you to pay for sick kids health care is morally worse than allowing sick kids to die. Is this the sum of libertarian ethics? WTF? You guys are fetishizing property to an absurd degree imo…Why should everyone else invert long standing common sense notions of the relative value of human life vs. property rights?

    1. so you are pro choice?

    2. How predictable, Mr Self-Righteous himself is here to lecture. Never mind that the point has whizzed right past him and he has ignored all the reasoning offered and distilled everything to a neat petulant “you mean people suck!”

      1. Well, you have to admit that good intentions are what’s really important here. Like the War on Drugs Reality, bringing democracy to the middle east at the point of a gun, ending poverty witk LBJ’s Great Society, encouraging home ownership and my personal favorite, public housing.

        Results don’t fucking matter, it is only that some guilt ravaged or begging at the door liberal wants to fix everything for everybody with other people’s hard earned money.

        MNG knows this and goes to bed smugly assure that even though bleeding heart policies are exacerbating the very problems we are trying to solve, he fucking cares.

    3. Making it illegal to provide economicallty viable insurance to children is the lynchpin of your stupid fucking ethics system? Is that your point?

    4. You speak as if the state would never let sick kids die due to lack of funds.

  35. Surely you’re not saying we have the resources to save the poor from their lot? There will be poor always, pathetically struggling . . . .

  36. Enslave the doctors so that children may live!

    Dead kids or slavedocs. Pick one or the other.

    1. False dichotomy. Actually, slavedocs means lots of dead kids.

      Check with North Korea about how that works.

      1. The problem with health care is that people can’t afford it, right? So if you make it free, then the problem is solved.

        I can’t believe you’re taking the side of those rich fat-cat doctors instead of all the dying children. You must be in the pocket of Big White Coat.

    2. Maybe we just quit supporting the doctor cartel so we get more of them who might then actually compete for patients?

  37. Here’s an idea-

    Get to gether with a few hundred of your neighbors and hire a doctor and nurses directly. Pay for it and then no insurance needed except for emergency care, surgery, and drugs.

    NOTHING is stopping you from doing this.

    Interestingly, something very much like this has been done. Only people didn’t necessarily band together with their immediate neighbors, they joined a club of people that they liked to hang out with anyway.

    Sadly, the doctors’ union became concerned that this practice made medical care so cheap that any blue-collar slob could afford to hire a doctor. So they got the government to put a stop to this.

    http://libertariannation.org/a…..>/a>

    1. I’ve mentioned this around here before, but I used to be on the board of directors for a former mutual aid society in Tampa (now more historical). A bunch of cigar factory workers banded together to get medical services, build a clubhouse, provide a venue for entertainment, etc. Until very recently, the club was still offering older members (and I mean OLDer members) medical care, though it came through some sort of bizarro mutual aid thingee connected to HMO laws.

    2. Not exactly the same thing, but within the last few years a group of doctors in NYC (IIRC) got together and wanted to offer their services on a subscription basis. Members paid a monthly fee and received care as required.

      The state insurance commisssion shut them down since they were not regictered as an insurance company.

  38. I agree with you libertarians on ONE THING. The underlying PROBLEM is the THIRD PARTY PAYOR.

    Regardless of whether it is Aetna or Medicare/Medicaid, the fact that someone else is paying causes price inflation.

    Don’t believe me? Call you doctor and ask him how much a Doctor visit is. They act like they don’t know. They’ll respond to your question with “do you have health insurance?”

    Basically, doctors charge whatever insurance will pay. And, insurance will pay ANYTHING the doctor says.

    The THIRD PARTY SYSTEM has to go. Insurance/Medicare/Medicaid have to GO. However, Doctors/Providers will NOT want this and will fight to the DEATH.

    Under NO circumstance do Doctors want to face the FREE MARKET and actually charge what people can actually pay.

    1. Now I feel ONE THING dumber

    2. Cut Alice Bowie some slack. She at least gets the essential economic issues. Unlike the idiots who wrote this stupid law.

      1. But I don’t think the problem is the Third Party payor.

  39. And, insurance will pay ANYTHING the doctor says.

    Obviously not true. There is a constant war between doctors and insurance providers over reimbursement rates.

    But the rest of your post is valid. The Medical Establishment wants absolutely nothing to do with the free market. Their opaqueness around pricing is all the evidence you need.

  40. Under NO circumstance do Doctors want to face the FREE MARKET and actually charge what people can actually pay.

    While it is true that the doctors (or at least their professional associations (which is not quite the same thing)) would prefer not to face the market unprotected, I’m not sure that you quite understand how price setting works…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.