Why HSA's Are The Way To Go For Health Insurance

Yesterday I read "Theodore Dalrymple's" excellent editorial on the notion of a 'right' to healthcare in the Wall Street Journal. "Dalrymple" is the pseudonym of Anthony Daniels, a British doctor.

His argument that there is not such a thing as a 'right' to healthcare was persuasive. Daniels crystallized it in this passage,

"When I then ask my interlocutor whether he can think of any reason why people should not be left to die in the street, other than that they have a right to health care, he is generally reduced to silence. He cannot think of one.

Moreover, the right to grant is also the right to deny. And in times of economic stringency, when the first call on public expenditure is the payment of the salaries and pensions of health-care staff, we can rely with absolute confidence on the capacity of government sophists to find good reasons for doing bad things."

Daniels' observation immediately gave rise in me to a clear argument for partially-government-funded health savings accounts, or HSAs.

Suppose you give in to the notion that everyone in the US has a "right" to health care. But, you don't want to needlessly infringe on anyone's private rights to choose their health care providers, or what is treated, within a societally-agreed level of affordability?

What would you do to effect that? Easy.

You'd provide each person with a government-funded HSA. Every taxpayer would be allowed a credit sized to allow purchase of health insurance. Those taxpayers above a certain income threshold would get no further assistance. Those with no income would be given a voucher with which to purchase health insurance. Those below a threshold would be provided with an actuarially-determined payment into their HSA, in addition to the health insurance credit or voucher.

In this manner, everyone would be 'covered.' Everyone would have insurance, and those too poor to have money for deductibles or out of pocket health expenses would get money in an HSA, to be used only with approved medical care providers.

Once someone has used up their government-provided HSA dollars, they are on their own. We can't provided unlimited health care to everyone. But family and friends could spend their HSA dollars for really sick relatives or friends.

Nobody would have their right to choose providers, or care, rationed by anyone else. And 15-20% of our economy, the health care sector, wouldn't be radically altered to allow for a government-run system.

Thus, a wealthy country, like ours, could relatively easily provide real, cash health care assistance to those who need it, without changing private medical care systems.

Further, the expense has to be funded in cash, so Congress would have to place the expense of this assistance on budget. The public would see just how much its compassion really cost.

Let's see, private rights not infringed, an entire economic sector not taken over by government, poor people provided dedicated health care assistance.

Not a bad way to provide healthcare, if you really think it's a "right" we must guarantee. Clearly superior to the 1,000+ page pig of a bill being rammed through Congress by Wonderboy and his minions.