Do We Need Obamacare To Cover The Uninsured?

August 12, 2009 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (4)

Amidst the emotions and furor in these town hall meetings on healthcare, might there actually be some worthwhile, substantive discussions about how to reform the system? I haven't found any, but I can extrapolate from this moment in Obama's town-hall meeting in New Hampshire. The Journal reports:

...Mr. Obama tried to emphasize one issue, a prohibition in the legislation on insurance companies denying coverage to Americans with pre-existing medical conditions. He was introduced by Lori Hitchcock, a 52-year-old single mother who has been unable to purchase health insurance since she was diagnosed in 2003 with the Hepatitis C virus, which can give rise to the same disease that took the life of her husband.

"I am the face of the uninsured. I am uninsurable. I have a pre-existing condition," an emotional Ms. Hitchcock said.

Is she really uninsurable? Is regulation the only way to make insurance available for people with certain pre-existing conditions?

A few weeks ago, Bryan Caplan of GMU responded to a similar question I asked. He argued that regulation itself is one of the major factors that make health insurance hard to get:

...the fact that health insurance is too expensive for the poor is actually an important argument for deregulation of the health industry in order to bring costs down. For starters, there are many regulations on the books that specify what health insurance companies have to cover—mental health being the most notorious. In a free market, insurance companies could offer more restrictive policies that the poor might actually be able to afford.

Would the "free market" really provide healthcare or insurance for everyone? I doubt it. But it's hard to conclude who is insurable and who isn't when there are so many government-imposed rules that distort the system. The full extent of people who could buy health insurance might be much greater in a world where insurance companies can better narrowly tailor policies to the demands of consumers.

Reader Comments Read all comments (4)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Lily's argument is a perfect example of what is wrong with some people's conception of healthcare: they think it is the job of someone else to prevent them from dying. They also don't want insurance, really. They want someone else to pay for their healthcare.

No, Lily, insurance companies are not at fault here. Without insurance many people would die today, but it is not the responsibility of any company to keep the American public alive. If people want to live longer, they can do what they can to make it their priority(nutrition and exercise), but currently we do not have the technology and resources to keep people alive indefinitely. You seem to think we do... and furthermore that it is someone else's responsibility to keep us that way.

Richard Nelson: so basically you don't want insurance, you want someone to pay your wife's health bills. That's not insurance, that's passing the costs off to someone else. I am sorry that your wife has a disease, but compare this to any other sort of insurance, and no wonder the insurance companies don't want to cover your wife. IMAGINE a world in which we actually had a market for healthcare! The insurance companies are the problem, but not in the way you think; they drive up costs because health companies, hospitals, and doctors can charge the insurance companies much more than the market price--what you would pay out of pocket. But please, don't try to tell me you want insurance, when you really just want discounted costs. That's not how car, home, flood, or any other kind of insurance works. Why should it be so with your wife?

Muser: wait, so insurance companies do their best to make a profit? What a surprise! Why don't you go read another blog that demonizes business. The point is that we want health costs to respond to the REAL market, not the inflated costs of the insurance companies. You don't like insurance companies? Fine, but don't get mad because people want to make money.

Justin of MA 11:22AM August 13, 2009

WOw. Insurance companies allow people to die everyday, not only by refusing treatment, but allowing the type of expensive treatments that make the person more ill until they eventually die. The food industry is holding their hands lovingly creating crap foods that that lead to the illnesses. The FDA allows these foods to get by the raDAR WITH PAYOFFS AND LIES. a LOT OF INGREDIENTS FOUND IN FOOD ARE TOXIC CHEMICALS THAT OTHER COUNTRIES HAVE FORBIDDEN FROM usa. bUT NOT THE GOOD OL usa. asPATAME, PROVEN TO BE DEADLY, IS IN EVERY DIET PRODUCT OUT THERE-BANNED IN OTHER COUNTRIES BUT ON THE SHELF OF YOUR NEIBORHOOD wALMART. wOOD ALCOHOL--WOOD YOU DRINK IT?This is just a tiny little speck. A bunch of thugs monopolize this country with their pay-offs--Greed has kept us behing in technology and health. Car companies, Pharmacuetical companiesthie list goes on. When will Americans getget off their fat , over weight buts, turn off the reality program, put down the diet coke and rally up against these murderers and liars ruining our counry,

Lilly of FL 9:19AM August 13, 2009

"narrowly tailoring policies to the demands of consumers" will never happen.

Narrowly tailoring policies to the demands of profit for the insurance companies" would certainly happen.

It already has. That's our present "health system."

My wife has diabetes and can't get insurance anywhere.

That's a "narrowly tailored" policy all right.

Richard Nelson Bolles of CA 2:32AM August 13, 2009

Capital Commerce

U.S. News business reporter Matthew Bandyk examines the issues, people, and debates that shape the nexus of political and economic life in the nation's capital.

advertisement

advertisement