Sevelamer Hydrochloride Tablets Buy Sevelamer HydrochlorideSevelamer Hydrochloride Tablets Buy Sevelamer Hydrochloride
|
 |   Related post: is one of the oldest forms of insurance. If sick- ness insurance is really the solution of the sick- ness problem which its advocates assert, why is it that without compulsion, fifty per cent, subsidies, and various other tonics to help it along, it has not been able to reach a position of more than three and one half per cent, usefulness? There are two chief reasons why sickness in- surance has never been able to take its place along- side of fire and life insurance. The first of these reasons is its excessive costs as measured by the protection afforded. The other reason is the exces- sive waste which is inseparable from this form of insurance, whether it is voluntary or compulsory. Insurance is purchased for the protection af- forded, Buy Sevelamer Hydrochloride and is cheap or expensive according to the amount of protection which can be bought for a given sum. When one can insure a six thousand dollar building against loss by fire for ten dollars a year, there is no question of the advisability of carrying the insurance. On the 'Other hand, if it were to cost one thousand five hundred dollars a year to insure a six thotisand dollar building against loss by fire, almost no one would carry fire insurance even though the hazard were such as to justify the risk. The difference between the rates mentioned above is, however, approximately the difference between the cost of fire and sick- ness insurance. Fire insurance is almost univer- Sevelamer Hydrochloride Tablets sal and this is because there is no question as to its economic value. In a city such as Schenectady the ratio between cost and protection is for the average risk about one dollar premium per annum for six hundred dollars' worth of protection. In- surance against death is another typical example of insurance of unquestioned economic value. The death of the head of the family is an irreparable damage. The chances of this occurring in any given unit of time are small. For instance, be- tween the years of twenty and forty-two the risk for any one year is less than one in one hundred. If we set aside the investment features of the average policy, we find that life insurance during the years of the average man's economic activity costs only about one dollar a year for each one hundred dollars of protection. In sickness insurance we find conditions abso- lutely different from those encountered in fire and life insurance. Instead of six hundred dollars and one hundred dollars, respectively, of protection purchasable for one dollar premium, we find ii February 21, 1920.] L'jft, Kat, Mse & laroai ufe)i>pua^' STANTON: COMPULSORY HEALTH INSURANCE. 321 under the best individual type of sickness in- surance an average protection of below five dollars for each one dollar paid as premium, while in the family type of compulsory health insurance, as pro- posed in the socalled model bills of the American Association for Labor Legislation, this average protection for real cases of illness must of neces- sity sink to but little, if any, over one dollar average protection for each one dollar paid as premium. The reasons for the low insurance value of sick- ness insurance are not difficult to ascertain. The economic value of insurance decreases as the oc- currence against which the insurance is carried be- comes more frequent and the distribution more uniform. For illustration, suppose that each indiv- idual could count upon being sick once a year for an approximately uniform length of time. Then it would be the height of folly to attempt to carry yearly term sickness insurance because from the very nature of things the returns from this in- surance could only be the amount of the premium paid less the overhead costs of conducting the business. Stripped of superfluous detail this is the insurance problem actually encountered by the socalled model bills championed by the compulsory health insurance advocates. The model bills pro- vide for the medical care of all members of the. family. The compulsory health insurance advo- cates are particularly fond of quoting the Ohio family statistics, so we will take these studies as a basis for our illustration. The U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics ascer- tained the costs, in 1918, for medical care in 719 families in Cleveland, Lorain, Toledo and Colum- bus. Because seven families out of the 719 had medical expenses amounting to over three hundred dollars it is argued that the entire group of 719 should have been insured for the purpose of pro- tecting the seven particularly unfortunate families. This is typical of the mental attitude which concen- trates on the one per cent, and overlooks the ninety-nine per cent. As a matter of fact, 716 of the 719 families had sickness expenses during the year, averaging $41.97 to a family. Not only was there sickness in more than ninety-nine per cent, of the families, but the distribution of sickness is so nearly uniform that only five and one half per cent. of the families had sickness expenses in excess of one hundred and twenty-five dollars, which is only three times the average expense for each family. Only twenty-five families, or three and one third per cent., had sickness expenses in excess of one hundred and fifty dollars, and less than one per cent, had expenses amounting to over three hundred dollars. In the face of the distri- bution of illness as shown by these figures, the family unit type of sickness insurance can only be justified from an economic viewpoint if it can be shown that the cost of conducting the insurance is insignificant as compared with the benefits to be given to the families having abnormally high sickness costs. As I will show "later the overhead costs and economic waste incident to this form of sickness insurance has never been less than forty per cent., and from the very nature of things, can never be much less than this figure. For purposes of illustration, however, we can assume that some miracle will take place and that the waste incident to politically controlled compulsory health insurance would be only thirty per cent. Assuming only a thirty per cent, loss, we are still confronted with the fact that in order to insure the twenty-five families who had expenses over one hundred and fifty dollars against an aggregate loss of less than six thousand six hundred dollars the remaining 694 families would have had to raise Related links: Voltaren Xr 100mg, Prilosec Otc Mg, Buy Frumil, Buy Buspirone Online, Inhaler Combivent, Omeprazole Cost, alli online uk, Diltiazem Sr, Cost Of Rogaine, albuterol sulfate 2.5 mg
|