I agree with you on due diligence but 80% of the current population don’t even know how to start on basic due diligence and 5%, some of the people I work with, are intellectually incapable of such basic things.

If our alternative to government programs does not spell out things and the safeguards essential to its operation we hand it over to the statists forever. Also you are making a significant mistake of assuming that a libertarian/ anarchist society is a lawless entity. With out law there is no hope even where due diligence, etc, is done. In any free society there must be an agreed set of laws though not necessarily one enforced by even a minimal state. However a free state with an independent judiciary will create laws of precedent and judicial agreement. The question is whether it occurs in public or at some judges dinner table.

I’m not real sure about the point of your story. Did the existing health insurer have a clause in the contract that allowed them to drop her?
**No, they did not. They merely called and said they would not be able to carry her because she had become “high risk”. **My take on this is: Business as such, any and all business is entrepreneurial. And an entrepreneur is a risk taker. Insurance companies therefore cannot pass the risk inherent in their business to their clients**.

If this is the case, and I’m guessing that it was, then it should be self-evident that de-regulating the health insurance industry would help.
**I am with you on this. De-regulate, let smaller competitors join in that are willing to accept the risks involved and not pass them on to their customers. The big fat ones will have to follow suit or fold**.

If one was able to purchase insurance a la carte – and choose their levels of coverage and what clauses they approve of based on how much they were willing to pay, then she could have made sure she had a policy that contained no “heart patient” clause.
**She probably did not check for that clause, maybe because she was not aware that she was going to become a heart patient in the distant future**.

In other words, put the choice – and the *responsibility* – back into the hands of the individual.
**All this began when she had a bad fall at her work place. The insurance company refused to pay her medical bills because they told her that she could have avoided the fall. The employer refused to pay workers comp on the same grounds. Then when she had her first heart attack, the insurance company made selective payments of the medical bills, made her responsible for paying the bulk and then dropped her**

Why, exactly, does a business have “to understand… that they have to suffer the loss and eat it and NOT increase health care premiums just because they are in this for the money” ? An insurance company must recognize the fact that Risk is the main feature in their business. **When an insured claimant puts in a claim they have to honor it and pay up AND NOT RAISE THE PREMIUM BECAUSE THEY INCURRED A LOSS IN PAYING THAT CLAIM. THEY HAVE TO ACCEPT THE LOSS TO THEIR BOTTOM LINE. IF THEY CAN’T TAKE THE HEAT ….FORGET MESSING AROUND IN THE KITCHEN AND FORGET BEING IN THE INSURANCE BUSINESS. THAT’S WHAT I MEANT BY EATING THE LOSS AND MOVING ON**.
Why would an insurance company bother to exist, if they didn’t want to make money? If they “suffer a loss and eat it” all the time, how will they have any money to pay out to their claimants? **THEY MAKE THEIR MONEY OFF OF THE PREMIUMS OF HEALTHY SUBSCRIBERS WHO DO NOT PUT IN CLAIMS**. (Oh, I know, it’s because some board of super-intelligent aliens who can see into the future will set the proper prices). **Irrelevant, in light of the above explanation**
Secondly, I am sorry to hear of the heart trouble. However, pre-existing conditions is the #1 emotional tactic that is being used right now to advance this thing. **Read my post again… it was not a pre-existing condition**But the bottom line is, health insurance is NOT a right, and you can’t force a business to give you something for free. **I too do not consider it a right and nobody asked for a free handout. On the other hand, a $1000 a month premium is preposterous **
If I want fire insurance, I can’t buy it after my house burned down. **You are missing the point**
Yes, this sounds callous, especially to someone who has been at the bad end of the stick in this regard. However, I would submit that without much of the current red tape you would find some insurance companies would appear that would be better suited to address this sort of thing with people, at better prices than is currently possible. **There are no such companies out ther. If there were, I would have found them**

So do your due diligence.

You ask who asks the insurers for the pro bono the answer is ‘ the drafter of the legislation’ the libertarian parliament (or its equivalent). With out such an entity able to make requests you have no libertarian society.

Ah, so you advocate unabashed aggression. This was my fear, which is why I asked for clarification.

By the way, notice that I use the verb “ask” in its proper sense, as in a request — not in the sense that you mean it, as a demand backed by threats.

The losers in med-malpractice suits must pay the court and lawyer fees of the winner. Simple.

I don’t need insurance to pay for groceries !

Why would the licensing agency be liable for damages? This is nonsense. If a practitioner is licensed by XYZ Co. and, some time later, causes harm, this is through no direct fault of XYZ Co. XYZ does not employ the practitioner. However, XYZ’s reputation is likely to take a hit.

But ask them to include a ‘pro bono clause’ in their policy that allows them to pay a slightly higher voluntary premium to cover the uninsured and uninsurable.

What does “ask them” mean? Who is doing the asking?

Where this clause is taken up by the members the insurance provider is obligated to cover the uninsured family and others with connections to members.

If insurance companies wish to enter into such a contract, they may do so. Or they may not.

“If you get shot, you are going to call 911, not want to research your options…”

To expand on others’ arguments, the sensible consumer joins a “health emergency club,” just as drivers join AAA, so that when they are in an accident or precipitously ill, they call their HEC (AAA), which dispenses an ambulance (tow truck), to take them to the nearest affiliated hospital (auto repair) on the approved list for the HEC. hospitals would compete to earn the high ratings from the HEC, because it would bring more customers.

Calling 911 is using a govt service. How is fixing your body different from fixing your car or a flat tire? We don’t ask govt to determine who we can call for roadside automobauble help! Why must we have them determine how we get help for our body’s ailments?

Just as OnStar wireless services today can solve the problem of how to get urgent assistance through a privately subscribed service, future free market “911″ services could use technology to improve on the current govt controlled system of dispensing emergency help.

His point is very important but as a staff member of such a charity there is a problem. Charities are not set up normally to fund long term services. Restrictions on what charities can do with donations, particularly paying the insurance differential between the insure-ability and uninsure-ability would help and allowing charities to create long term trust funds to cover the chronic cases. I agree with Kenneth without mentioning the charity options we hand victory to the socialists. Hans-hermann Hoppe has made the same mistake that every libertarian makes: Assuming that everyone can stand on their own two feet if the socialist props are removed. History tells us that tis is not true. That’s why the former soviet union territory is sliding back to socialism. The skills personal responsibility can’t be learned in a few years or even decades, it may take generational change to create a population that can stand in Hans’ world of free market medicine.

The HSA (Health Spending Account) allows an individual to personally pay for his/her own health care; unusually large expenses are protected by a policy with a very large deductible.

Therefore, individuals who are in poor health and use more services will pay more, up to a limit. This also serves to discourage individuals from using unnecessary or optional services.

Another benefit of the HSA is that individuals who are hospitalized will pay insured rates, rather than the incredibly high rates charged to the uninsured.

Psychiatry should be VOLUNTARY and should follow the same contractual principles as the rest of medical practices.

That way, you would eliminate all the unnecessary costs related to involuntary committment and forced drugging.

Psychiatrists should be their patient’s agents anyways and should not work for the government nor the police nor the judges nor for any third party.

Not only would that save money, it would also save lives.

In my view, point three is the rudimentary rot at the center of this entire problem. Mandated Health Insurance Benefit (MHIB) laws have been around since the late 1960s. In 1970 there were only thirty MHIB laws in America and by 1990 there were close to 1000. Since then they have continued their exponential rate of growth.

For an analysis of this, see my 1991 National Review article “Don’t stay healthy in America” at:

http://tinyurl.com/kvay7u

Mark D Hughes

1. abolish government!