June 24, 2009— -- Politicians like to couple the adjectives "accessible" and "affordable" with the words "health care" when describing the goals of health care reform. They say that with reform, all Americans will have access to affordable health "insurance."
I'd like to suggest that we eliminate the term "insurance" when talking about health care.
Insurance protects us from experiencing an unexpected loss that is greater than our ability or willingness to pay. I spend thousands of dollars a year on homeowner's insurance to protect me from financial catastrophe should my house be destroyed by fire or an earthquake. I spend thousands more to insure my automobiles against theft and collision. In both cases, I am pooling my money with tens of thousands or perhaps hundreds of thousands of other people to protect me from a loss that statistically only happens to a very few of those who are insured.
It especially doesn't work if we try to affix the word "affordable" to the premiums that would be needed to support such "insurance." How much would my homeowner's insurance cost if my insurer knew that every covered home would one day burn to the ground? How much would car insurance cost if everyone in the insured pool drove a red Ferrari, and every red Ferrari got totaled? That is the conundrum of health "insurance."
We are asking for "affordable" premiums that will protect us from the financial burden associated with services that each and every one of us will use; services that will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars over the course of a lifetime. In fact, I've read recent statistics suggesting that the average American will spend $240,000 just to cover out-of-pocket health care costs not paid by Medicare between eligibility and death. Affordable? I don't think so.
When it comes to discussing health care, I think politicians should start using a word other than insurance, and they certainly need to get rid of "affordable" in the same sentence. Yes, there's plenty of room to make health care "less expensive."