| HappySqurriel said: While I'm against universal healthcare, having government provided health insurance for all citizens to cover non-preventable illnesses and injuries is reasonable ... After all, preventable illnesses and injuries represent the bulk of healthcare costs which means this insurance would not be that expensive; and since they couldn't prevent the illness or injury the moral hazzard is fairly minimal. |
If you separate the rare-dangerous stuff from the common-not-so-dangerous stuff (which I think is what you're kind of getting at), you can typically create a very cost effective means of providing both, privately.
If insurance companies only offered insurance for the biggies - heart disease, the worst cancers, etc (and also included elements for preventability - charging extra for smokers, people of certain weights, etc). The health insurance could actually be rather cheap. Although these procedures can cost tens of thousands of dollars, the insurance could still be relatively cheap as they happen so rarely.
Meanwhile, if dental care, vaccines, opticians, contraceptive care, check-ups, etc. were provided by a separate plan - be it another insurance plan, health savings account, or buying out-of-pocket, these things are far more common, but much more cheap. Nobody is going to end up homeless because they get an ear infection. The biggest problem with these is that universal care - whether private or public - is over-demanded. Economics 101 - when you get rid of the cost of marginal consumption, you encourage more of it. Very few people will go in for heart surgery on a regular basis, however, no matter how free it is.
