A Universal Health Care Economy

NRNando -

Re: extending coverage: his suggestions would cut costs (making treatment more affordable) and make it easier for people to obtain portable insurance so that they don't lose coverage when they lose their jobs.  Since most people who lack coverage for some portion of the year lose it because they've lost their jobs, that would do wonders right there.

Re: curtailing the denial of coverage: Bryan Caplan covered this recently at EconLog:

If you read Ezra's post, there are actually two distinct complaints about free-market health care.  The first is that insurers engage in near-fraud - rescinding coverage on flimsy pretexts when people get seriously (and expensively) ill.  If this were more than an anecdotal problem, which I doubt, I don't see why lawsuits or advertising couldn't handle it.
 

Ezra's second complaint, though, is "insurers rid themselves of unprofitable accounts by slapping them with intentionally unrealistic rate increases,'" a business practice known as "purging."  Frankly, this story makes no sense.  If a customer is expensive, a company might want to raise his rate so he'd be profitable to insure.  As long as there's competition, though, firms have no reason to raise the rate higher. 
 

Of course, if the problem is that you want to buy insurance against the possibility of becoming a high-risk customer, you should pick a company that lets you lock in your rate.  See e.g. life insurance, where you can get a fixed low rate for life if you buy your policy when you're young.

I'd go further than the recommendations Jon made: I would seriously cut back on mandates that turn "insurance" into insulation and make cross-state competition much more difficult -- in some cases impossible.  I have a bunch of other proposals too, but those are a good start.

But I'd like to challenge your demand that everyone have insurance extended to them.  That should not be considered an end in itself.  Many individuals, and the country as a whole, may benefit from a lack of insurance.

I have personally avoided health insurance, though I can afford it.  Instead I've managed my own risk by adopting a healthy lifestyle and building up my liquid savings.  I understand that if I'm really unlucky, I could be wiped out, but life is risk and I can accept a certain low-level "risk of ruin" in exchange for the benefits.

So far I have benefited by being able to spend my money on necessities (food, rent, etc.), schooling (I chose to go to super-expensive GWU) and travel to take advantage of job opportunities instead of on mandated insurance coverage.  That's a deliberate choice I made, and you can preach to me all day about how irresponsible or irrational you think my decision is, but I don't see why anyone should have to pay for the consequences of my choice except me.  (I could accept paying the cost of burying me, if it comes to that.)

Some people risk their lives and limbs as part of their jobs, and they're compensated for it.  Others take the same risks for fun, and accept liability.  I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to do the same.

In the relatively near future, I will probably get catastrophic medical coverage.  But for now, I'd prefer for people like you to stop using me and other people like me as if we were all victims here.  I don't want insurance coverage to be forcibly "extended" to me either on my dime or anyone else's.