Comments on: The WSJ editorial board, shooting at sick people http://duncancross.net/2009/06/the-wsj-editorial-board-healthiest-people-alive/ ill. humored. Sun, 14 Mar 2010 03:43:56 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Some People Already Pay Too Much Of Their Own Costs | Colorado Health Insurance Insider http://duncancross.net/2009/06/the-wsj-editorial-board-healthiest-people-alive/comment-page-1/#comment-1127 Some People Already Pay Too Much Of Their Own Costs | Colorado Health Insurance Insider Wed, 17 Jun 2009 05:51:18 +0000 http://duncancross.net/?p=1532#comment-1127 [...] the US.  He’s been through more than his fair share of medical procedures.  And he’s not impressed with a recent WSJ editorial that calls for Americans to take on more of the cost of their health [...] [...] the US.  He’s been through more than his fair share of medical procedures.  And he’s not impressed with a recent WSJ editorial that calls for Americans to take on more of the cost of their health [...]

]]> By: Peter http://duncancross.net/2009/06/the-wsj-editorial-board-healthiest-people-alive/comment-page-1/#comment-1095 Peter Tue, 09 Jun 2009 22:44:53 +0000 http://duncancross.net/?p=1532#comment-1095 The point is that the moral hazard of any individual third-party payor is partly responsible for the skyrocketing of healthcare expenditures. Moral hazard is a beast, affecting both patients and physicians, insulating both from the pressures of monetary costs. The physician says: "Let's order this MRI to rule out a tumor." The patient says: "Ok, it's a low risk, but I'm not paying for it, so go ahead." Look at it this way: the average American already has a heavy tax burden which goes towards subsidizing employer-provided health insurance through tax breaks and government-provided health insurance through FICA. The recipient in all this does not realize that the high taxes already paid goes towards funding healthcare. If taxes were decreased and thus the taxpayer receives a larger take-home income, then more money at the discretion of the taxpayer is available to pay for healthcare costs. "At the discretion" is the key phrase. They are not saying you should pay more than you already are for your healthcare. They are saying that the system should be structured in such a way that you realize that you are already paying for healthcare costs. Reduction of moral hazard is the key. The point is that the moral hazard of any individual third-party payor is partly responsible for the skyrocketing of healthcare expenditures. Moral hazard is a beast, affecting both patients and physicians, insulating both from the pressures of monetary costs.

The physician says: “Let’s order this MRI to rule out a tumor.”
The patient says: “Ok, it’s a low risk, but I’m not paying for it, so go ahead.”

Look at it this way: the average American already has a heavy tax burden which goes towards subsidizing employer-provided health insurance through tax breaks and government-provided health insurance through FICA. The recipient in all this does not realize that the high taxes already paid goes towards funding healthcare.

If taxes were decreased and thus the taxpayer receives a larger take-home income, then more money at the discretion of the taxpayer is available to pay for healthcare costs. “At the discretion” is the key phrase.

They are not saying you should pay more than you already are for your healthcare. They are saying that the system should be structured in such a way that you realize that you are already paying for healthcare costs.

Reduction of moral hazard is the key.

]]>