Governtment Medical Care, Why it does matter and why it can work

Recently I was told in the matter of Government or Private Health Insurance

"It wouldn't matter. The world either wants a government monopoly or a private monopoly on insurance when it doesn't work.

I happen to believe that the 'World' hasn't had a real debate over what options there are. Nothing about private Medical Insurance (MI) is harmed because of govt health insurance except levels of profit for the industry and the need for that industry to follow any rules or create new products and markets. They have become lazy and don't want to actually work at their business. They like a locked in customer base and see no reason to change that. Setting aside the morality of making a profit from what is supposed to be an altruistic endeavor for a moment.

The MI industry can ignore rules because the people making those rules (politicians) look to the industry for the "experts in the field" when making any rules. How much money a company paid to get a politician elected seems to correspond with the level of expertise a company has in the field of making it's rules. If politicians are asking people with a vested interest in profitability (not health care) the best rules to create to regulate them what kind of rules do you honestly think will get made?

MI also doesn't have to improve the insurance markets or it's products except in profitability. And it has the option of picking an chooses who it wants to bother with in the customer base because it CAN. You can only purchase private MI and many have to go without regardless of an obvious need. Why should the MI industry bother doing anything except providing what is profitable when you have no choice but to go to them? Why work at creating good products when the customer base has no choice?

For example, Private Transportation industries have to go against Public Transportation. The Private Transportation industries have to get people to want their product and that takes aggressively looking for good new ideas and creating a good products. Because of that people have options in fulfilling their transportation needs. Some people choose private vehicles, some public transportation by choice , some a combination of both and those who need it because they can't afford a choice have a viable option to enjoy freedom of movement, a public good.

I don't see why Govt MI can't be created that augments what the private sector obviously cannot maintain well and produce at a profit without harming or depriving it's customer base of a basic level that anyone can use if necessary. Govt MI just means that Private MI would have to 'specialize' and create new products to sell to the market. Nothing more. They would have to create a need for their product that doesn't hamper the real needs of the overall populous for real health care as opposed to medical insurance. As you say, they are not the same.

They would simply lose a monopoly on the customer base. They would have to work to create new markets and products beyond the scope of or to augment the Govt MI.

A couple of examples:

1) Plastic Surgery Insurance. This is not something that the govt would cover unless it was of a life saving operation or the results of something covered by the Govt MI. This means that if you decide to do it you need to pay insurance to cover it. This means that an actor or someone who believes their personal appearance is relevant to their income and they are concerned about how they will handle such costs could pay for MI at a younger age and reap the benefits if needed in the future. Hell, they might not need it because they age well and the MI company would make a profit on that beneficial outcome for both their customer and themselves. Some would pay and never need it because they didn't make it to the "big times" where anyone cared if they changed the way the looked.

2) Deductible: A flat rate you pay every month instead of paying the deductible whenever you go to a doctor. If the Govt MI deductible is 5 dollars (refundable if you are actually sick) because some stipend must be paid in order to get people who would just be going in to waste medical staff time because their lonely or something. You charge someone 1 dollar a month for that policy and pay that deductible if they have a card. If they are shown to abuse the product (going on multiple visits a month based on the "lonely or something" scenario above) the insurance can be canceled for abuse without actually harming that person's ability to actually receive care if really needed.

3) In-Home Visits: For all those who don't want to wait for a doctor they could pay any deductible insurance you may incur for a "home visit" from a group of doctors willing to do home visits as opposed to seeing a patient in a clinic or hospital.


Like Flood or Earthquake insurance, some people would need them and some won't. Some would be able to afford the extra "insurance" and some won't. Obviously the legal terminology of the proposals would have to be hammered out by experts but those are examples of products that I don't think I should have to pay for. I think if you want that in home service or just want to show a card paying the inevitable deductible and all you have is a hangnail, a cold or need some company you as the individual should need to pay for that service if you think it's necessary so I don't think I should be tossing into the kitty so that Michael Jackson can have his 5th nose job.

However, if you have a heart attack, lung cancer or need life saving drugs or operations I have no problem putting a little bit in. That's what "charity" would be like in a country that really didn't mind giving charity to anyone who needs it. I also don't think that someone should go bankrupt or lose their home because they needed to help a loved one in a time of real need. That doesn't sound civilized to me. It sounds careless and barbaric.

Giving the MI a monopoly on people's basic health care regardless of need just seems stupid and cruel and a ripe seed for misuse. It's putting health insurance decisions on the same level of Cable vs. Satellite TV or Broadband vs. Phone Line. It's not the same. Whether you can live or die is not the same as the quality of what you get to see on television or how fast your internet connection is.

There is private security and the police. Fire departments exist but you can still buy water sprinklers and an alarm. Someone had to develop those ideas in a market that originally didn't exist. That's how a healthy economy is supposed to work. That's how the MI should work. Not taking advantage of people but creating products that actually serve a purpose beside forcing people to deal with you.

Just like you have to wait for the bus or train instead of simply hopping into your car, convenience is something that should probably be paid for. And just like without the public bus and trains, the overall economy is harmed because some people who help it survive and grow depend on them, there should be a method of providing health care for those who do the same and need to have their health care taken care of so that they can do their parts.