Comment 48590

By Jajjj (anonymous) | Posted October 01, 2010 at 11:29:14

The arguments you put are frankly pretty weak, especially when put in the context of a free market.

1) Yes, one of the principal interests for an insurer is to be risk averse. However, under a free market, fair insurers tend to win over skimpy insurers. Reputations for actually following contracts matters.

2) Your assumption here certainly has bearing under our mixed, employer driven third party system. However, under a consumer driven system, incentives change, and consumers will then have an interest in prevention to drive down insurance costs, and for-profits will follow.

3)Generally, yes, but the inefficiencies still apply. There is a reason why you can buy addon in most countries with "universal health care."

4) Compare to what? Certainly, compared to the US third party payer driven system, yes. Even Friedman mentioned this, since you can do many controls through government.

5)EVERYONE must profit, even non profits must make a profit. You should be talking about profits to shareholders...that's what "for profit" means. In fact, and it is expected, almost nationalized systems run deficits and have perpetual debt...except Switzerland.

6)That's what doctors are for!

7)I agree, which is why we should have true insurance, and not third party paying. If insurers break contract, they should be sued.

8)Yes, market forces can impose efficiencies. Switzerland and Singapore are two great examples of this...they even fit your socialized framework. They socialized the catastrophic end, but use market forces in terms of high deductibles and savings accounts.

9) That simply doesn't happen, I have a plan that covers everywhere in the world. In fact, in the US, all "insurance" plans do!

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds