I’ve decided not to blog specifically about Obama’s speech after all; plenty of people have done that already, and I’d prefer to spend some time debunking popular liberal arguments instead, one at a time.

One accusation I get a lot when I say I oppose the current healthcare “reforms” under consideration is, “Sure, you say we don’t need reform, but that’s only because you have good insurance. If you didn’t, you’d know why we need [a public option/more government regulation of the insurance industry/insert untenable proposal of your choice here].”

If you don’t have health insurance, and still believe in a free market, then you don’t need my help rebutting this argument. I do, however, have a policy that’s quite comprehensive. I have not had a health problem to date that hasn’t been paid for largely by my insurance company. When I was in the ER a few years ago with a fainting fit, I paid about $500 on a total $4,000 bill. When I developed heel pain during marathon training last year, I paid a $15 copay for each visit I made to the sports medicine specialist or to my physical therapist, and the insurance company took care of the rest. When I had upper respiratory infections earlier this year, I paid my primary care physician $10 and my pharmacy $5 for the generic antibiotics; again, the insurance company paid my doctor the remainder of his fee.

“See,” my liberal friends say, “you’re lucky because you have good insurance. Why shouldn’t everyone else be in that position?”

Well…”good” by whose standards? Not mine.

Back in 2007, I gave a breakdown of why all that coverage is not, in fact, a good deal for me. I am young and in excellent physical condition. I don’t smoke, rarely drink, and maintain a healthy weight. So I don’t consume a lot of healthcare resources. Even when you add in what my physical therapy last year cost, I (and my employer, on my behalf) have still put much more money into the system than I have gotten out of it. My policy covers all sorts of extras, like addiction counseling and hospice care, that I’m unlikely to use any time soon, if ever. I’d much rather spend a lot less money on a catastrophic-coverage policy, pay for my own anticipated healthcare expenses (like birth control and doctor visits), have some money put away for unanticipated but non-catastrophic expenses (such as last year’s physical therapy), and have the catastrophic coverage available for when there is a true emergency. That would be good insurance for me. Instead, I get a cookie-cutter policy — because the government has, through force, “encouraged” my employer to buy me more coverage than I need at the expense of my salary.

So no, dear liberals, I don’t have “good” insurance. I have fairly comprehensive insurance — but it costs my employer a lot more money than it’s worth to me. How is that “good”? A free market would generate more individualized solutions — one of which would work best for me, another of which would work well for someone with a chronic condition.

And just because I work for an employer that provides me with comprehensive coverage, it doesn’t mean that I, or anyone else, owes such coverage to those who can’t or won’t get it for themselves. There is no right to health insurance, to health care, nor to any good or service that has to be produced by others.

reasonpharm.blogspot.com