Categories
Uncategorized

Socializing risk through legislation

If you pay attention, the Federal Government has been engaged in an aggressive anti-smoking campaign recently, which includes some graphic television and billboard ads.  One I drive past regularly has a cadaver which has the stitch marks in his chest which are apparently left following an autopsy.

Why do they care?  The point which has been obvious to me for some time, and which I recently saw made elsewhere, is that if all health costs will funnel through the Federal government–which of course is the end game for the leftists behind Obamacare–then the costs associated with all forms of risky behavior will also funnel through.  In order to protect us, then, they will have to direct us, first through persuasion, and then more directly by diktat.

What is more subtle and already missed, though, is that by prohibiting insurers from refusing to insure preexisting claims, the costs associated with the fat, lazy, and stupid are already being passed along, through the premium increases which NECESSARILY attend paying increased bills for people who are already sick.

The way it should work is that every insurance relationship should be between the insurer and the insured.  The insurer should face sufficient competition that it feels the need to offer reasonable pricing, and the insured should have adequate choices.  What will be necessary, though, is that if you are fat, smoke, or engage in other risky behaviors, you will pay more.  This is simple enough.  The point is that at that point IT IS YOUR CHOICE.  If you want to smoke, then smoke.  You are paying higher insurance costs.  If it is worth that much to you, then have at it.  It’s, in theory, a free country.

By pretending, though, that the healthy should pay the same as the willfully sickly, we all lose.  The healthy lose the benefits of making good choices, and the sickly are rewarded, in a sense, for their poor choices.  Everyone loses.

I want to be clear: other nations afford universal coverage by simply not providing the caliber of care we do.  People survive here who would die in other countries.  This incents the population of other nations not to be so self abusive, since the magic pill that will fix their illness will not be paid for.  Here, they get it.  Hell, it was developed here.

Yet, if those people had to pay OUT OF THEIR OWN POCKET for that miracle cure, they may hesitate just a bit longer before engaging in whatever risky behavior puts them at risk. What Obama and the left wing has proposed may–over some lengthy period of time rationing–reducing–both the quantity and quality of care here–reduce the moral hazard of complacency our system enables, but only at the cost of destroying the quality healthcare those who deserve it would otherwise have access to.

Hopefully this makes sense.  I am speaking generally, but I think sufficiently coherently to be of some use.