“They do not provide good health care benefits for their employees,” she explains, describing the coverage as a “self-rationing” type program and noting how the Personal Wellness Account can be quickly depleted even for those who earn double minimum wage. “If one of these employees gets sick, they’re in trouble.”
_________________________
Every decision we make is self-rationing...
It goes back to personal responsibility
and accountability.
_________________________
Every decision we make is self-rationing...
It goes back to personal responsibility
and accountability.
_________________________
Duh. Every decision we make is self-rationing. We have limited funds so we need to make decisions as to how we spend our money. It goes back to personal responsibility and accountability. But that is the essence of the problem with people like Sally Hampton. They want to take all decisions away from you and give them over to ‘those who know better.’
Really?
The health care plan that Whole Foods has is one model of what we can do in this country to reform health care. If anyone, disagrees with that and believes in the universal health coverage being proposed in Congress, PLEASE contact me. I would love to have a conversation with someone who truly believes that type of care is better. We may agree to disagree, but I think the conversation would be fascinating.
Posts
5 comments:
According to Alan “Every decision we make is self-rationing. We have limited funds so we need to make decisions as to how we spend our money. It goes back to personal responsibility and accountability.” With many aspects of life this may be true; but when it comes to health care not only do most people trust their doctors to make the right decisions; but few have the skills or knowledge to make such decisions. Words like “personal responsibility and accountability” sound good; but are really just abstract terms more used for their emotional appeal than for any specific practical value. I have written a detailed rebuttal of John Mackey’s “Whole Food Care” which can be found at http://wholeboycott.com/ [scroll down to find on left side of page]
Calling people idiots says a lot about the author, someone who needs inflamed emotions to distract from the bogusness of his reasoning. My rebuttal includes a specific section “HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNTS and WHY THEY DON’T WORK.”
Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH
While I take exception with the author of the the previous post in regard to his arguments against HSAs, he is right in that I did not need to resort to name-calling. Hence, I have re-named the post.
If only we lived closer to one another so we could engage in a discussion of health care. His background in medicine and my background in insurance (combined with a deep belief in capitalism) would make for an interesting discussion. We would probably agree to disagree, but I think I would enjoy it.
Thank you for your comments.
Alan
Alan emphasizes his "deep belief in capitalism;" but as with most people he misses the point that not every aspect of human society fits into a capitalist model. I am a stronger believer in free-market competition for consumer goods. Health care is not a market commodity. F.A. Hayek, an Austrian Economist, is considered one of the founding giant of free-market economics. Milton Freeman described Hayek as his inspiration. Hayek’s writings are imbued with an immense fear and distrust of government power. For him, the main defense of individual freedoms is a strong market economy with minimal to no government regulation. His extreme market approach can be partially understood given his having experienced the horrors of Nazism & Stalinism during his formative years. Few have ever written stronger condemnations of socialism & government power than Hayek. Yet, even Hayek recognized that there exist public goods, goods & services, that markets do not apply to, that trying to fit into a market model only result in market failure and reduced societal welfare. In one of his seminal works, “The Road to Serfdom,” Hayek writes: “Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance—where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks—the case for the state’s helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong.” Single-payer is the social insurance that Hayek speaks of. It is not socialized medicine since delivery of care would be in the private sector. (F. A. Hayek. “The Road to Serfdom (Fiftieth Anniversary Edition),” Chapter 9: Security and Freedom, page 133. The University of Chicago Press, 1994.)
The third edition of an excellent book that discusses the assumptions that underlie a free-market and why they don't apply to health care is Thomas Rice, "The Economics of Health Reconsidered," 2009. In addition, theory and ideologies aside, disregarding the self-serving propaganda put out by the for-profit insurance industry and their right-wing funded think tanks, international statistics show that several countries with some form of universal non-profit health care do better than we do on many measures, including timeliness, prevention of complications from chronic conditions, etc., and they do this for half what we spend per capita.
So Hayek, the guru of free-market economics believed health care should not be treated as a market commodity, economists such as Thomas Rice have shown why market assumptions don't apply, and the empirical evidence shows that market approaches are more costly, less efficient, and do not provide more choice or better quality.
I am, as Alan, a strong believer in free-markets in areas where free-markets are the most appropriate, e.g. consumer goods, etc. Health care is not one of them.
Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH
Health care, like all goods and services, is not free and unlimited. It is not a public good, as it is neither demanded nor supplied collectively. The fact that some people have greater need or fewer resources does not make health care a public good either. And wherever government has intervened to force markets into public goods (Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Fannie, Freddie) it has by fiat determined the payer, the payment, the beneficiary and the benefit - and still gone broke.
It is wise to insure for unforeseen health care needs beyond what you can afford. Individuals should be free to choose whether and at what level they wish to insure. It is socially responsible to assist those who struggle to afford health care and health insurance. It is unneccessary to nationalize the entire health care industry.
HSA plans are financially more efficient than low-deductible and copay benefit plans. You may argue theoretically, or you may simply run the numbers. Add up the total cost of premium, deductible and other out-of-pocket payments for an HSA plan and a low-deductible copay benefit plan, and you will almost always find that the HSA plan costs you less - regardless of whether the insured person makes his own health care decisions or leaves all thinking to the doctor.
For individuals who choose to make their own health care choices with or without the advice of a doctor, it is inarguable that there is greater potential for savings with a low-deductible copay benefit plan rather than an HSA.
- Phil Ericksen
I wish to make three points:
1) Mr. Harrison infers that Milton Friedman would have been for government health care when he says, "Milton Freeman described Hayek as his inspiration" and then goes on to quote Mr. Hayek desire to have the "state" provide for those instances where "few individuals can make adequate provision". Milton Friedman and I both agree with that. But the current plans brought forth by our friends in DC are not JUST for the "few individuals can make adequate provision". In fact, any case for government health care goes WELL BEYOND those Mr. Hayek believes should be helped by the "state". All plans for a government role in health care are power grabs, and not just care for those truly in need.
Milton Friedman addresses this in two videos that can been seen by clicking on the 'Milton Friedman' labels on the right side of the blog. He is clearly AGAINST the role of government in health care EXCEPT for those TRULY in need.
2. The government has proven time and time again that it a) grossly underestimates the cost of programs and b) cannot run a program efficiently. For proof, Look at Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, AMTRAK, and the US Postal Service. Also see our post from October 13, 2009.
3. HSAs do in fact work and work well. As Mr. Ericksen said in the previous comment, if anyone 'runs the numbers' and includes ALL relevant costs, HSAs WORK for most families. If anyone wants proof, please contact me through this blog and I will help you walk you through some examples (that we both provide).
Post a Comment