Milton Friedman on healthcare-not what you may expect

[cyberianpan]

There's a fairly obvious problem with that point of view: some of us suffer very much from chronic conditions that probably wouldn't qualify as sudeen unexpected catastrophes.

If those conditions aren't covered by the universal 'catastrophe insurance', who pays the significant, ongoing costs?

It seems to me that Friedman's answer is "you do, from your healthcare savings account".

Try explaining that to someone with an expensive chronic condition and low-to-average earnings.

I think it would be a "catastrophic event" to say be diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis

cYp

[ivnryn]

Try explaining that to someone with an expensive chronic condition and low-to-average earnings.

It would probably still count, as it is a single condition. You would pay the first 5k.

There was a suggestion in the US for "health status insurance". This paid out if your health status changed. The payout could only be used to pay for health insurance.

Another issue is the whole pre-existing conditions problem is how to handle genetic testing. Should insurance companies be allowed to ask that people are tested.

[macdarawhitfield]

Its all crap and bollix isnt it really? We are still one of the worlds richest countries and can easily afford a proper health care system.It would be much simpler and cheaper than all this multi tiered rubbish.End of.

[Libero]

I think it would be a "catastrophic event" to say be diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis

cYp

I take Friedman's point that an insurance-based approach to frequent, predictable occurances can be fairly inefficient.

But I'm not sure his frame of reference of catastrophe insurance - easily understood in the context of earthquakes or hurricanes or damage to a car - can be applied without real problems to human health conditions.

One thinks of two classes of difficulty in particular. One is where a condition is usually fairly commonplace and easy to handle, like asthma, but can flare up and develop into a more debilitating chronic condition. What level of asthma counts as a catastrophe? Does it change every month? Another class of problems is where a person's lifestyle makes a serious medical condition relatively predictable - like lung cancer for a smoker. Devastating as it is, can it qualify as a catastrophe if it's so foreseeable?

[cyberianpan]

I take Friedman's point that an insurance-based approach to frequent, predictable occurances can be fairly inefficient.

But I'm not sure his frame of reference of catastrophe insurance - easily understood in the context of earthquakes or hurricanes or damage to a car - can be applied without real problems to human health conditions.

One thinks of two classes of difficulty in particular. One is where a condition is usually fairly commonplace and easy to handle, like asthma, but can flare up and develop into a more debilitating chronic condition. What level of asthma counts as a catastrophe? Does it change every month? Another class of problems is where a person's lifestyle makes a serious medical condition relatively predictable - like lung cancer for a smoker. Devastating as it is, can it qualify as a catastrophe if it's so foreseeable?

Indeed - the distinction between "insurance" and "regular" events will always have judgement calls

Also as you suggest people could be profiled (be it through genetics or existing conditions) as being "at risk" for future misfortunes.

Though in general I think Friedman is right in the need to distinguish between
Expected & Unexpected expenses. Also reading his article... just shows how silly the current GOP crop are.

cYp