The Truth about Losing "Healthcare" - The Libertarian Institute

https://www.libertarianinstitute.org/blog/truth-losing-healthcare/

*The Truth about Losing "Healthcare"*

March 15, 2017

By Mencken's Ghost

Media reports say that 20 million Americans will lose their "healthcare"

under the Republican plan to replace ObamaCare, as if healthcare is like

a cellphone, wallet, or item of clothing unintentionally left somewhere

or stolen by someone.

Such confusion about "healthcare" stems from the misuse of the word

itself.  In common usage, the word "healthcare" is used as a synonym for

"medical care" and "medical insurance," although these words have widely

different meanings.  This is more than an issue of semantics.  There are

serious policy implications of using the wrong words, and the misuse

reflects an entitled attitude among the populace and lazy thinking by

the media, academia, and politicians.

*Healthcare*means taking care of one's health.  It's what one does to

stay healthy—namely, to have a healthy diet, exercise, not abuse alcohol

or drugs, and avoid risky behaviors.

*Medical care or treatment*is what you seek from medical professionals

when you have a medical problem and aren't in good health.

*Medical insurance*is what you obtain to protect yourself financially

from a catastrophic illness or injury requiring expensive medical

treatment.  In insurance terms, you pool the risk with others.

The total cost of medical care in the USA would be reduced significantly

if American simply took care of their health.   For example, the cost of

overeating alone is estimated at $200 billion, just for the treatment of

diabetes and heart disease.  This doesn't include the cost of Social

Security Disability payments or other income support for those incapable

of working due to medical problems stemming from overeating.   Nor does

it include joint problems from being overweight or gastrointestinal

problems from eating too much of the wrong foods.

In addition, the medical costs stemming from smoking are estimated to be

$133 billion.  Alcohol and drug abuse add another $350 billion.

Sexually-transmitted diseases add $16 billion.  Reckless driving and

other reckless behavior add untold billions more.

Using these figures, the total cost of preventable illnesses and

injuries is $699 billion at the minimum, and probably $1 trillion when

all the other costs are included.  That comes to $2,184 to $3,125 per

citizen, or $5,024 to $7,187 per household.  In a very real sense, the

30% of the population that foregoes healthcare—that is, that doesn't

take care of their health—are inflicting these costs on everyone else.

Much philosophical gibberish has been written about the moral

responsibility of society to provide medical care to those who can't

afford it (as if society is an individual moral agent).  But virtually

nothing has been written about the moral responsibility of individuals

to not inflict costs on the rest of society because they lack

self-control and self-respect.  Of course, with nearly a third of

Americans not taking care of their health, this is too large of a group

for the media and their advertisers to make angry by stressing the

point—especially given that much of advertising is for drugs, magic

elixirs, and snake oil to address the infirmities and ailments stemming

from a lack of personal healthcare.  Certainly, no politician in his

right mind would dare to raise the issue.

These cowardly framers of public opinion also are silent about the fact

that spending on medical care/insurance ranks about fifth compared to

other spending categories, such as housing, food, transportation (cars),

education, and entertainment, as I've detailed in previous

commentaries.  It's not hyperbole to say that medical care/insurance is

subsidized and socialized in the USA so that the masses can buy

expensive cars that are loaded with gadgets galore, instead of saving

money for the infirmities of old age.  It's a matter of making tradeoffs.

In the same vein, many (most?) of the framers of public opinion say that

medical care/insurance should be socialized; that is, provided entirely

by the government.  Yet, strangely and inconsistently, they don't

advocate the same for food, shelter, clothing, and transportation.

Unless they are hardcore Marxists, they don't say that these industries

have to be socialized in order to help the poor—that everyone, rich,

poor and in between, should have to buy food in government commissaries,

live in public housing, wear standard Mao uniforms, and ride the same

model of bicycles to work.  Instead, the poor are aided with targeted

social-welfare programs, such as food stamps, housing vouchers, and over

one hundred other forms of welfare and entitlements.

The counterargument is that medical care/insurance is different, because

it doesn't have the immediacy of food, shelter, clothing, and

transportation.  It's not something that people need every day.  It

requires people to plan ahead, defer gratification, make tradeoffs, and

save for medical emergencies.  That's a valid point.  However, there are

ways of addressing this inescapable fact of human nature other than

socializing the entire medical industry, or engaging in massive income

transfers, or hatching monstrous central plans in Congress that will

only serve to raise costs and make people even less willing to take care

of their health.  I've detailed the other ways in other commentaries,

including commentaries in the Wall Street Journal, a professional

medical journal, and other publications.

Oh, well, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.  I have to end now so that I

can drive to the convenience store in my $30,000 car to buy a big bag of

Cheetos, a Big Gulp, a package of beef jerky, a package of Twinkies, a

Snickers bar, a pack of cigarettes, five lottery tickets, and a bottle

of antacid tablets.   Or to use the popular lament, I'll be "losing my

healthcare" at the convenience store.