Beachlady's right---the article misrepresents the situation a person would be in if they got seriously ill. My wife and I switched to a health savings account, and we would be anything but "left out in the cold" if either of us got seriously ill. It's simply high deductible insurance with pre-tax dollars used to cover the initial costs. Health technology and attracting the best and the brightest to step up for 8+ years of very demanding, post-baccalaureate studies and grueling work hours will never come cheap. The world's best healthcare is well worth paying a lot for. I'm also all in favor of good sized copayments, because they discourage doctor-shopping and hypochondriasis sufferers going in for every torn fingernail and itchy eyeball. Functioning, capable people who avoid buying health insurance because it costs too much are deluding themselves, and selfishly risking their loved ones' savings. Even when I was living on 13-18k a year in the two years between undergraduate and graduate school, I purchased catastrophic insurance so as not to bankrupt my parents should I get hit by a truck. For those who can't take care of themselves---let's subsidized their insurance. I don't want socialized medicine, but I am willing to pony up for societies truly down and out that need public assistance. Also--I love the saying that's been floating around, " If you think the cost of being sick is high now, just wait until it's free." Read: 6-month waiting list for ct scan....etc.

Your "saying that's been floating around" is equally a misrepresentation. If healthcare were run as a two-tier system, there would not be waiting periods for those able to pay; cover all with basic care for free (those people would be subject to the inevitable waiting times caused by demand outstripping supply - it would be the "price" of free care and the incentive to exit the system), while still allowing those with the financial means to seek care outside this system from providers able to give speedier, more complete service.

healthcare is worth paying for, and what you get for free is probably substandard (think about public schools vs private schools)

now here's a pop quiz: what sort of insurance probably costs the typical american family far more than private health coverage, and is required by law?

if you answered 'car insurance', go to the head of the class.

in fact, many families pay extra to insure the "fun sports car", gas guzzling SUV, or the cars their kids will drive the instant they turn 16.

health insurance isn't too expensive - its simply avoidable, and thus people want someone else to pick up the tab, so they can use their own funds for the SUVs, sports cars, nights on the town, vacations, LCD tvs, and what have you.

just because something is a "necessity" it doesn't logically follow that the government should subsidize it for us.

that sort of philosophy is how cuba operates

Two quick points:

1. HSAs were misrepresented in the article. They have been a great way for my family to avoid very high monthly premiums while continuing to receive the benefit of 100% protection (up to $5M) in the event of a horrbile injury/illness.

2. I am not certain a two-tier system would be politically viable in the long-run. If there were a national health plan, can you imagine a politician who could survive a vote "against allowing the best health care for the poor"

I don't think any of the options on the table are good ones

"(think about public schools vs private schools)"

Every time we had a student transfer from a private school to my public school, they had to step back a grade or so to get caught up to where we were.

YMMV

the SAT and other standardized test scores, on a national basis, consistently affirm that private school students score significantly higher (in the aggregate) than public school students?

are the private schools in your town predominately creationist/fundamentalist throwbacks?

or does your public school district take punitive action which is unwarranted on former private school students?

in either case, your town is certainly bucking the national trend.

Wouldn't be because of the differences in curriculum and academic requirements would it?

I'm sure you ran an exceptional school, but you are an incredibly large exception.

Public schools are obligated by law to educate all children, so to enroll in a public school you simply register your child by filling out the necessary forms. Public schools must accept any resident student who applies for admission, regardless of sex, race, religious affiliation, economic status or physical or mental handicap. Public schools must also meet state graduation requirements, which vary state by state. Public schools can kick children out if their behavior is too disruptive; but the public school system will usually have in place an alterative school that the child will attend until they are no longer under the care of the public (18 years of age).

Private schools are not obligated by any laws regarding admission. Therefore, private school admission is competitive. Also, private schools are not required to provide educational programs for children with special needs. Private schools are also under no obligation to keep a student enrolled. If a child’s behavior disrupts the school’s milieu, they can be kicked out. Another scenario to keep in mind is that if a child’s academic progress is not acceptable, they may be kicked out as well. Graduation requirements for private schools are decided by each school and are not subject to any state requirements. Many private schools do choose to align themselves with private school associations which will mandate graduation requirements.

The tiny percentage of students in private education systems may very well gain a statistical advantage over their public school counterparts when it comes to SAT scores. This phenomenon is known as cherry-picking. I suspect that if you look at the top ten percent of all students tested, the majority of them will be products of public education.

I'm sure that there are poorly performing public schools out there -- there are also some very good public schools. The same can be said of private schools. Being private doesn't guarantee quality.

Yes, many private schools in my part of the country teach "creation science" and other such religious nonsense. No, our public schools do not take punitive action against private school students. In order to enroll, students must take a standardised exam to determine their grade level. I am not an educator. I am only relating my own, personal anecdotal experiences.

Want a non-anectodal take on the issue?

Read this: <link>

"now here's a pop quiz: what sort of insurance probably costs the typical american family far more than private health coverage, and is required by law?"

You're wrong again.

It may give you satisfaction to believe this, but it is not factually accurate.

I can insure three cars for much less than my 50% employee contribution for Blue Cross Blue Shield medical insurance. The co-pays/deductibles also tend to be lower with my automobile insurance.

Nice try though!

;-)

public schools are NOT obligated to educate all children. many exclusions abound:

• public schools can permanently expel anyone, at any time, for just about anything. if you don't believe me, just visit some prisoners at your local jail and ask if they were expelled from school, and what for.
• you can drop out of public school at age 12 or 14 in most districts.
• public schools take "some" children with disabilities, but not all, or even most. and "most" kids with disabilities never take the SATS or other standardized tests, so claiming they're dragging down the average is complete bullshit.
• you can avoid school entirely by being home schooled

how come you don't know this stuff? you went to a public school yourself, I assume?

were you out the day it was taught?

evidently you don't live in a state like maryland or new jersey, have never ever had an accident, and don't have teen drivers to insure.

thank goodness we have saints like you, who are not only on the extreme of the bell curve, but don't even know the shape of the bell curve.

but thanks for submitting your anecdotal condtion as "the norm".

i guess you assume all people are from the same nation, gender, and race as you too?

Doctors are expensive because they have to pay for their malpractice insurance. Health care is expensive because we have to subsidise Insurance bureaucracy. It appears that we are all just working for banks (our house mortgage) and Insurance companies.

I do not know from where you got such an inexpensive health insurance, or such an expensive car Insurance. I have teen age drivers too, live in the Boston area, and our family's monthly health Insurance costs more than what I pay for my car Insurance in a year. Not to mention the deductibles and co-payments which I have to pay on top of what I pay to the health insurance company.

Obviously you don't insure a family, because you're not even close. Medical insurance (even crappy insurance) costs 3 or 4 times as much per year as auto insurance (complete coverage, 2 cars).

And guess what? When you have a family, medical insurance is necessary, just like auto insurance, unless you want to end up in bankruptcy and lost your house. Our medical system has become WAY TOO EXPENSIVE to pay for out of pocket. If your kid breaks his arm or can't breathe late at night (which inevitably happens) and you don't have medical insurance, you're staring down a $2000 bill (or more). Don't even think about trying to pay out of pocket for more serious problems.

my friend