The way forward on health benefits
Sebastian Mallaby of the Washington Post mulls pulling the plug on tax exemptions for companies to provide their employees with health insurance. Even though I benefit greatly from the current system I would support the measure. I think it's only fair that individual insurance accounts would be the only fair way to go. If companies want to provide health insurance without tax subsidies then more power to them.
The sticky stuff comes from free market forces as Mr. Mallaby skillfully points out. Health insurers would charge extravagant amounts to people who are deemed risky (as they already do). Needless to say risks can be assessed on a wide variety of items (such as race or genetic makeup) and the government would most likely need to limit the potential factors in order to equal the playing field.
Potential risk factors can be divided into three categories - genetic, environmental and personal. The genetic factors are perhaps easiest. If we, as a society, want to equal the playing field then all genetic factors need to be excluded (e.g. race, weak heart, cancer, etc.). I think most people would agree with this one. Personal choices should also be easy (e.g. smoking, obesity, HIV/AIDS, etc.) as I think most would agree that these factors are within our power to stop or control and thus should not be excluded. Environmental factors should be covered as well, with some firm limitations which would be aimed at preserving the environment by providing government/health insurer incentives for protecting it.
Needless to say the devil lies in the details. For example, gay men are at a higher risk of contracting HIV/AIDS. This scenario would walk the fine line between genetic and personal. Even though the current scientific thinking considers homosexuality as a genetic determinant there is still a lot of debate on this subject as a number of people still think it is a choice. Ultimately solutions are available. For example, gay men in terms of AIDS would not be covered for special protection (along with the rest of the population) thus encouraging safe behavior. This scenario could be likened to the situation young male drivers currently find themselves with higher insurance premiums than young female drivers.
A similar situation could exist in regards to cancer. Certainly there are people who are more prone to getting cancer who would be considered higher risk. Blanket coverage should not be provided, but rather a package of incentives for a lifestyle that would mitigate the possibility of cancer development as much as possible.
Bush's "ownership society" is a great idea. Discrimination is impossible to avoid in the insurance business, but solutions which encourage personal responsibility abound. We need to get away from the socialist welfare state mindset and focus on creating a free market, small government society. Protectionism needs to stop - on personal, corporate and societal level!
References:
1. "Ownership Society Still Needs Rules" by Sebastian Mallaby - Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3160-2004Nov21.html
The sticky stuff comes from free market forces as Mr. Mallaby skillfully points out. Health insurers would charge extravagant amounts to people who are deemed risky (as they already do). Needless to say risks can be assessed on a wide variety of items (such as race or genetic makeup) and the government would most likely need to limit the potential factors in order to equal the playing field.
Potential risk factors can be divided into three categories - genetic, environmental and personal. The genetic factors are perhaps easiest. If we, as a society, want to equal the playing field then all genetic factors need to be excluded (e.g. race, weak heart, cancer, etc.). I think most people would agree with this one. Personal choices should also be easy (e.g. smoking, obesity, HIV/AIDS, etc.) as I think most would agree that these factors are within our power to stop or control and thus should not be excluded. Environmental factors should be covered as well, with some firm limitations which would be aimed at preserving the environment by providing government/health insurer incentives for protecting it.
Needless to say the devil lies in the details. For example, gay men are at a higher risk of contracting HIV/AIDS. This scenario would walk the fine line between genetic and personal. Even though the current scientific thinking considers homosexuality as a genetic determinant there is still a lot of debate on this subject as a number of people still think it is a choice. Ultimately solutions are available. For example, gay men in terms of AIDS would not be covered for special protection (along with the rest of the population) thus encouraging safe behavior. This scenario could be likened to the situation young male drivers currently find themselves with higher insurance premiums than young female drivers.
A similar situation could exist in regards to cancer. Certainly there are people who are more prone to getting cancer who would be considered higher risk. Blanket coverage should not be provided, but rather a package of incentives for a lifestyle that would mitigate the possibility of cancer development as much as possible.
Bush's "ownership society" is a great idea. Discrimination is impossible to avoid in the insurance business, but solutions which encourage personal responsibility abound. We need to get away from the socialist welfare state mindset and focus on creating a free market, small government society. Protectionism needs to stop - on personal, corporate and societal level!
References:
1. "Ownership Society Still Needs Rules" by Sebastian Mallaby - Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3160-2004Nov21.html
posted by z @ 5:44 PM
4 Comments:
At 12:10 AM,
Ozzy said…
ah, Z, still just about the only person i know providing reference for your posts! :) not that i mind, now that i've got my uber-satellite-speed connection (lol - it's hardly uber, but it *is* ten times better - in ways).
i always want to leave a comment after the post, but before i read your link tho! so, i might do another :)
At 2:16 AM,
z said…
hmmm... so, that's interesting. do you think it would be better to put the link in the beginning? in cases where i want to talk about the article i do, but in others where an article "inspires" me i'll usually put it as a reference. i'm open to input!
At 7:51 PM,
Ozzy said…
hmm...well, imo what you're doing now is kinda how we're taught to do it in school for papers and such. there's a couple of different views i have here (and feel free to say i'm just being anal)-
1) if you're essentially just commenting about the item in reference, like i usually do on my own blog, i like to put the link first (i usually link the title). i think it encourages people to click that and read it first, or at least get the gist of what they're going to read about when they get back to your post. that way they can form their own reaction before reading yours. this would prolly make your comments more of the "dis/agree" variety, tho.
2) if you're writing more of a mini-essay like we might find in a school assignment, where you're critically evaluating something in the article or the article itself, then i'd say the link should be at the bottom, and that's what i think most of us are used to.
the sticky point that i'm running into is that your posts are kind of blurring the two :)
personally, i like to read source material before i read extrapolated works. that way i can dis/agree with your points as i'm reading :)
i think i kinda lost my point somewhere...umm...keep up the good work! :)
At 2:39 AM,
z said…
great feedback oz! thanks.
yes, i agree. i kinda blur the two into my own style. i like your suggestions though and i think i'll link the "main" or "first" link to the title as well as provide it/them on the bottom.
Post a Comment
<< Home