insurance should not cover pre existing conditions

[xahrx]

“To think in such narrow terms is self defeating, and once again…ultimately meaningless.” - vive la insurrection

To debate the topic at all is meaningless because no one has a clue how the system would evolve absent the current massive cluster %$#@ that is the current hampered market. If you want better wording then try this: “The government should not force insurance companies to offer coverage they do not want to offer.” Better?

The practical reality is well known, and that is a large portion of the population can’t afford medical services they want because the government, in collusion with insurance companies and providers, have driven prices into the stratosphere and for most tied the existing model of insurance to their employment. As such a large portion of people want to force existing insurance companies to ‘cover’ existing conditions that would otherwise not be covered. And my opinion is I don’t give a deep fried ferret crap, because those same insurance companies get to dump these cases a lot more than they otherwise would be able to if people weren’t forced by the existing system to switch insurance companies every time they switched jobs.

“I don’t believe that charity will be enough to ensure people get the help they need.” - Consumariat

I sympathize with the point of view, but I don’t think it’s true by and large. Without going into detail, I have a chronic condition myself and the first thing that occurred to me when I picked up my meds for the first time is what a pain in the ass it was to get them, and how much easier and cheaper it would be if there weren’t an army of pharmacists and doctors standing in my way making sure all the ‘proper’ forms were filled out in triplicate. People have trouble finding such care today because of the current system, and I think your objection is akin to using toll booths, an 18th century solution to charging for roads still used by the government today, as an objection to road privatization. You’re using the government’s failure and the unpleasant circumstances surrounding it to inform your objections to a private alternative. When you think about it, health is likely everyone’s primary priority, though they may define it differently and of course have different margins. But bottom line is there’s no inherrent reason why drugs and treatments must be expensive, and therefore no inherrent reason why they should be hard to come by even for the poorest among us. We would all die without food as well, but when was the last time you had trouble finding a sandwich for a reasonable price, and do you honestly think there would be many people at all who couldn’t afford food absent government interventions? In fact, usually when you find people who are truly starving they tend to be in that position because of their government.

[Seraiah]

@Consumariat

You seem to be proposing your own version of a healthcare system and then criticising it without me even having to enter the conversation.

Well no, what I did was propose a decentralised system for the distribution of care, which you seemed to agree with without reservation.

You then insisted that the money to fund this decentralised system should come through taxation, and I was pointing out that involuntary taxation will likely not yield more money than a voluntary system, as that portion which is coerced could never be allocated properly in the marketplace.

At the end of the day it’s speculative, but why do you presume that an involuntary taxation will yield better allocation of money than voluntary charity?

[Esuric]

My data comes from Nationmaster.com, for those interested.

Growth was actually slightly higher in the post war era than it was in the past 30 years.

First it’s important to point out that one of your original assertions, namely that this period ‘operated without significant problem’ is blatantly false (unless you don’t consider 5 years of negative GDP growth, and banana-republic-like inflation rates and interest-rates problematic). Next, you assert that growth rates were moderately higher in this period relative to the period that proceeded it. This may or may not be true; I don’t know I’m too lazy to check the actual figures. But I would like to point out that the growth path in that period was highly volatile and, as I’ve already mentioned, came at a great cost, namely enormous inflation (and subsequently price-controls).

inflation was a significant problem particularly from 1974 onward, but this is down to the oil crisis and not the welfare state.

First, the inflation rate began to rise before 1974, though 1974 was the year where the trend really took off very dramatically (peaked with 27.3% inflation in 1975). The inflation rate rose to 5.5% in 1969, 7.28% in 1970, 9.28% in 1971 and 8.06% in 1972. So the inflation rate began to rise before the oil ‘shock.’

If you disagree on this, please explain how the welfare state suddenly caused prices to skyrocket in 1974.

Well, as is always the case, enormous welfare states require perpetual monetization of government debt, i.e., expansionary monetary policy, in order to survive, inevitably yielding (general and relative) price inflation (the public will not accept the tax rate required to fund its entitlement programs). In other words, the inflation present during this period was primarily the result of inflationary monetary policies by the FED (Burns) and the Bank of England.

Additionally, a lower supply of oil can only raise general prices insofar as it reduces total output, and I do not doubt that it did reduce output to some degree. Unfortunately, a negative two-percent growth rate cannot account for 27% inflation alone. In other words, this cannot possibly explain the levels of inflation seen in both the U.S. and U.K at that time (nor does it explain the interest rate fluctuation that was perceived).

I would also add that wages kept up with inflation throughout this time, and so the problem was not felt as harshly as it might first appear by looking at the inflation numbers only.

Well there are two effects of monetary expansion; one is primary and the other is only secondary. The primary effect is that changes in the supply of money do not affect the prices of goods and services by the same degree or even in the same direction. This is due to the fact that the monetary expansion does not manifest as a proportional increase in cash balances across the board. Rather, the newly created sums enter the economy at certain points (in our system, it first enters the financial system) and then permeates amongst the entire economy. These relative price changes yield real changes to the production structure or what Austrian’s refer to as ‘malinvestments.’ Correcting these malinvestments yields a recession, and preventing such corrections through expansionary monetary and fiscal policy yields a sort of chronic, lingering stagnation (like what we perceive now, or what we saw in Japan in the 80s-90s, or what we saw in the U.S. and U.K in the 70s) which may or may not be inflationary.

The secondary affect is more commonly understood and it’s what you’re referring to, namely a general elevation in the price level. This causes an arbitrary redistribution of wealth from creditors to debtors, higher interest rates, destroys savings, incentivizes speculation (as the return to cash as an asset is negative), and falling real wages (since wage earners receive the monetary injections last).

I have a chart showing this in a book, but could not find an online picture of it. I will scan it if you like though.

Yeah, I’d like to see it.