InsureBlog points to an article at The Journal Blog wherein a rather naïve statement is made:
Excuse me, but I don’t have health insurance, by choice. And when I or other members of my family get sick, we go to see our doctor and we pay for it out of pocket.
It’s cheaper that way.
We don’t dump our medical expenses onto our fellow citizens/taxpayers and I have a strong feeling that we’re not alone. Surely there are other people who don’t have health insurance but don’t go the hospital emergency room route when they need to see a doctor.
Here’s what’s bothering me. It’s looking increasingly like the option of choosing to pay our doctors ourselves rather than buying health insurance is going to be denied us. By denying me that option, federal lawmakers are going to wind up forcing me to spend more than I can afford, not because I need the insurance but because they need my dollars in order to subsidize the medical care of the people who do need the insurance.
I can understand and appreciate that sentiment. It’s fairly similar to an opinion my wife and I held a few years ago. However, considering some nasty surprises that we’ve seen in the intervening period, we’ve been very thankful that we had had coverage; our medical expenses have certainly exceeded our expectations.
This sort of situation is exactly why for many people a combination of a catastrophic health coverage and medical savings account makes sense. Sure, it’s cheaper to pay for routine check-ups out of pocket, particularly if you shop smart. However, if you don’t have the resources to pick up expensive care in the event of disaster…not having some manner of a safety net seems horribly irresponsible.
I’m starting to feel like a broken record but I’m going to say this again: people can talk about spreading risk but the bottom line about insurance is that it costs more the more you use it. If you’re going to use it for routine medical care, the premiums will keep on increasing because the insurance companies increase premiums in order to pay out claims and still make a profit for their shareholders. That’s how the insurance business model works.
You know, if the problem is that health care (or health insurance) is unaffordable to you, that’s one thing.
However, if the problem you have with health insurance is the industry’s business model…well, there are ways to work around that. The profit load should, in theory at least, be an issue only at stock, for-profit entities. If I’m not mistaken, there ought to be a few nonprofit mutual benefit societies lurking around.
Or, perhaps the poster would find some more informal arrangement more to her liking. For example, the Amish and Mennonites generally shun insurance, if I recall correctly…but within their communities, there is a tendency for members to help each other when disaster strikes, creating implicit coverage.
Or, perhaps the poster is independently wealthy. I wouldn’t find the idea of an affluent person preferring to pick up all medical expenses out-of-pocket to be too offensive. However, I suspect that’s not the case here.
Bottom-line: Saying that you’re comfortable picking up your own medical expenses without at least acknowledging the magnitude of risk you’re taking on seems horribly naïve and irresponsible to me.