I do not believe any employer-based medical care program covers every single medical expenditure. Every policy I have seen specifies which medical expenditures are reimbursed and which are not.

“Tests for cancer really shouldn't be covered, while treatment if you DO have cancer certainly should be.

Why shouldn't such test be covered? Because that doesn't meet a dictionary definition of the word “insurance”? If an employer believes it to be in his best interest to uncover his employees' cancer in the early stages, why shouldn't that employer want to include such tests in the medical benefits he provides? The employer might also believe that uncovering cancer of employees' family members in the early stages will likewise prevent employee absenteeism. So why wouldn't the employer provide cancer testing for employees' families as part of the medical benefit program he offers?

I do not believe any employer-based medical care program covers every single medical expenditure. Every policy I have seen specifies which medical expenditures are reimbursed and which are not.

“Tests for cancer really shouldn't be covered, while treatment if you DO have cancer certainly should be.

Why shouldn't such test be covered? Because that doesn't meet a dictionary definition of the word “insurance”? If an employer believes it to be in his best interest to uncover his employees' cancer in the early stages, why shouldn't that employer want to include such tests in the medical benefits he provides? The employer might also believe that uncovering cancer of employees' family members in the early stages will likewise prevent employee absenteeism. So why wouldn't the employer provide cancer testing for employees' families as part of the medical benefit program he offers?

Not at all. The test is still available. It's just that you have to pay for it out of pocket. Is it pricey? Well, yes. But if you're in a high-risk group, then it may be worth it to you to get that test done. In which case, carve it out of your budget.

And yes, I know, there will be people who can't afford it. But this doesn't address the main point I wish to make with this post.

And that point is the very point that has been made time and again on this blog: insurance by its nature is present to cover the /unexpected/. Insurance should not cover every single medical expenditure, or it's a spending plan rather than insurance! /Tests/ for cancer are not unexpected. The /CANCER/ is unexpected. Tests for cancer really shouldn't be covered, while treatment if you DO have cancer certainly should be.

Not at all. The test is still available. It's just that you have to pay for it out of pocket. Is it pricey? Well, yes. But if you're in a high-risk group, then it may be worth it to you to get that test done. In which case, carve it out of your budget.

And yes, I know, there will be people who can't afford it. But this doesn't address the main point I wish to make with this post.

And that point is the very point that has been made time and again on this blog: insurance by its nature is present to cover the /unexpected/. Insurance should not cover every single medical expenditure, or it's a spending plan rather than insurance! /Tests/ for cancer are not unexpected. The /CANCER/ is unexpected. Tests for cancer really shouldn't be covered, while treatment if you DO have cancer certainly should be.

It is a lot like the cry for help, “Please someone stop me from stealing!”

Sand cats

“have a contact call which is a short, bark-like vocalization, a low-pitched miaow.”

I never imagined that Cafe Hayek would be my forum for showing off awareness of Felis margarita .

“Others find treatment for breast cancer rationed by insurance company bureaucrats who scramble to increase profits by denying coverage, sometimes on the flimsiest of pretexts. And the extent to which private insurance companies now offer coverage for screening tests is often determined by state mandates that they do so.”

- Have insurance companies compete across state lines. As for denial of coverage… …Medicare carves the country into regions. Medicare hires a third party contractor to handle claims. I'd love to see the rules used by these contractors to review claims.

“The government isn't run by bureaucrats but by politicians.”

- The fact that the government is run by politicians is supposed to make me feel better??? Bureaucrats are nothing more than apparatchiks.

“If anything, placing greater responsibility for health care in the hands of government is going to lead to more coverage than necessary, not less.”

- But think of the cost savings! After all, we're reducing the deficit!

How about “hypocritical” to do so.?

Another argument, one that I don't see much of, is the inevitability of government collapse. All governments eventually collapse. There has never been an exception. So what happens when a government that controls every aspect of our lives collapses? Better to keep government to a minimum, so that its end will not be catastophic.

Sand cats

“have a contact call which is a short, bark-like vocalization, a low-pitched miaow.”

I never imagined that Cafe Hayek would be my forum for showing off awareness of Felis margarita .

“Others find treatment for breast cancer rationed by insurance company bureaucrats who scramble to increase profits by denying coverage, sometimes on the flimsiest of pretexts. And the extent to which private insurance companies now offer coverage for screening tests is often determined by state mandates that they do so.”

- Have insurance companies compete across state lines. As for denial of coverage… …Medicare carves the country into regions. Medicare hires a third party contractor to handle claims. I'd love to see the rules used by these contractors to review claims.

“The government isn't run by bureaucrats but by politicians.”

- The fact that the government is run by politicians is supposed to make me feel better??? Bureaucrats are nothing more than apparatchiks.

“If anything, placing greater responsibility for health care in the hands of government is going to lead to more coverage than necessary, not less.”

- But think of the cost savings! After all, we're reducing the deficit!

How about “hypocritical” to do so.?