Health Insurance Sometimes Borders on a Racket
Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 3 months ago to Economics
We took our kid to a doctor for a minor but persistent respiratory problems. The doc suggested two possible diagnostic tests. We asked some questions about whether the results would affect which interventions we used. I thought the results may or may not be of some use, so I asked what it would cost. He said something like, “Oh no, do you have to pay for medicine [outside of health plan premiums]?” We told him yes, but the cost would not be a burden for us at all. We talked through it and we all decided the tests wouldn't affect the treatment and would only be worthwhile if someone else were paying for it.
This is the THIRD TIME in the past four years a doctor has suggested something that costs several thousand dollars and withdrew the suggestion after we took a moment to work through a quick-and-dirty cost/benefit analysis.
There was an opposite example with my wife's pregnancy. The doc started to say we could have so many ultrasound tests and then said, “oh wait, you're private pay. Nevermind. You can have them every day if you want. They're $183 each.”
These insurance plans that insure against every little trifling expenditure are a gravy train for providers. They start with people wanting to turn over responsibility for managing expenses to a company or gov't.
People should be free to make stupid health decisions, like my decision to indulge in Taco Bell and other unhealthful habits.
This is the THIRD TIME in the past four years a doctor has suggested something that costs several thousand dollars and withdrew the suggestion after we took a moment to work through a quick-and-dirty cost/benefit analysis.
There was an opposite example with my wife's pregnancy. The doc started to say we could have so many ultrasound tests and then said, “oh wait, you're private pay. Nevermind. You can have them every day if you want. They're $183 each.”
These insurance plans that insure against every little trifling expenditure are a gravy train for providers. They start with people wanting to turn over responsibility for managing expenses to a company or gov't.
People should be free to make stupid health decisions, like my decision to indulge in Taco Bell and other unhealthful habits.
At some point the libertarians should have critical mass to justify getting into the mainstream debates. Once they're in the debates, more people might vote for them. That's one good thing about voting for a libertarian unlikely to win.
I have heard about instant runoff voting, and it sounds like it would help with this. At least it would cause me to vote libertarian every time.
You are right. I should have said the "other one of the two establishment candidates". My sentence wrongly implied there was no libertarian candidate. I agree completely we need a libertarian, or at least someone promising to reduce the influence of the executive branch.
I categorically reject the thing you said about President Obama being the worst choice.
The other issue in WI is that we have a separately elected State Superintendent of Public Instruction, who has the direct control on these things. The Gov can only influence indirectly.
We've never claimed to be anything else Robbie. You don't "need to be an Objectivist", but it is important to remember that Galt's Gulch Online is not a place that seeks to be everything to everyone.
Galt's Gulch Online is a place that seeks to be a refuge for those who appreciate, and look to further propagate, Ayn Rand's ideas. And, we understand that our guests are not all going to possess the same level of understanding of those ideas.
We're going to have guests who have just recently been introduced to Rand and seek further clarification, we're going to have guests who have a complete understanding and seek the like-minded, and we're going to have guests who have been misinformed, think Objectivism is something it isn't, and require an adjustment - like you.
We appreciate your presence because you challenge us. We engage with you because your opinions on Ayn Rand and Objectivism are based on common misconception and false assumption and we want you to understand what Ayn Rand actually said and what Objectivism actually is.
We like you because you're smart, sincere, vocal, and we see you as potentially a great ally.
But, Galt's Gulch Online is not a place for anyone to proselytize their ideas. It's a place for us to proselytize ours.
And you... are our target. ;)
I've never claimed to be an O, and by stating my position, more often than not I merely get shouted down by those who are "strict" and cannot live-and-let-live with someone with whom they probably agree 95% with, certainly on morality and ethics. But they insist that their basis is the only "rational" starting point.
There's a big difference between rational and reasoned debate and mud-slinging. For example, I was recently called a Nazi. I don't think that anything that I've ever posted on this site would garner such a description.
I've said my piece. You know where I stand.
And I reject the notion that voting against Liberal Progressivism is not the moral choice.
I believe that defeating Hillary next year to be a noble crusade, and if I end up jousting at windmills, at least I will have tried....
.
Load more comments...