Group and Private Insurance

The belief that uninsured people already get free medical care is one of the arguments when people discuss the cons of universal healthcare in America.  I find it specious for two reasons.  The first reason is that if this is true, we are already paying for that medical care.  The second reason this is specious is that the care may cost more under this system because emergency care is better covered than preventative care.

If a doctor or hospital gives care to someone who doesn’t have private medical insurance and can’t pay their bill, the provider will be forced to add a little bit to the bills of their paying patients.  You and I are paying for that care in extra premiums to our health insurance companies and/or in extra dollars that we pay to our healthcare providers.  Shifting these costs to our taxes may not mean that we necessarily pay more; we may just pay differently.  This could mean that although it is probably not true that universal healthcare will not create higher taxes it may be true that it won’t cost us more overall.

There is no way around this.  This is true for supermarkets as it regards shoplifting.  This is true with companies in all industries that have outstanding accounts receivable. So this fact of business life isn’t  just for Californians without health insurance or Arkansas who don’t have Arkansas group insurance the costs of those who don’t pay is always transferred to those who do pay.  Does it matter that we currently pay this extra money in insurance premiums as opposed to extra tax dollars?

Free expensive emergency health care – limited cheap preventative care

The current system is biased towards providing emergency care for the uninsured and against providing cheaper preventative care.

Hospitals that want to get Medicare dollars are mandated to accept people in emergency situations whether or not they can pay for their care.  They don’t have to accept people who have chronic conditions that are all but destined to get worse.

This means that they don’t have to accept the person with high blood pressure and help him prevent a costly heart attack. This heart attack may keep that person from being a productive member of our society.  However they do have to help him when his wife drives him to the hospital after his heart attack.  Which do you think costs you and me more?

Another issue regarding this so called free care in the hospital is that the patient will be billed.  Their wages my be garnished and their credit may be ruinde. The uninsured patient may own a house and have that house taken away from him.  This may cause major disruptions in that person’s life and the life of his or her family.  It may cost the community as well.  The loss of credit and/or assets may mean that a child doesn’t complete their education and isn’t able to be as productive a citizen or pay as much money in taxes as he or she would otherwise.

I’m one of few health insurance agents who likes the concept of universal healthcare.  However, as with almost everything, there are more ways to do it wrong than to do it right.  I do have strong concerns about how we might implement universal healthcare, but we may be a better country after we have a better healthcare system in place.