Personally, I’m not even sure I understand Szasz point here. I mean, on the one hand, his criticism seems aimed at both Employer-provided Health Insurance and the Health Insurance Providers (by the way, this would exclude Medicare and similar, because Medicare is a program designed to off-set the costs of normal Health Insurance; aka cost-shifting the cost-shifting already occuring). But, on the other hand, the bulk of the criticism is lost in the fact that, although everyone can probably agree on responsibility, it doesn’t actually explain what Szasz’ problem with the most capitalistic enterprise in the US is. After all, is it not a good thing that Insurance corporations can parasitically feed off of non-Insurance corporations, via the Employer-Provided Insurance model? Is it not a good thing that Insurance corporations can provide a monopolistic service of one-size fits all (just as Wal-Mart does when it comes to eliminating any possibility of genuine competition via their reliance on less than savory overseas manufacturing and labour)?

Even if Employers didn’t have to provide health insurance, how would that change the issue of “ever-increasing premiums”?

Personally, I would like to see Szasz read “Healing of America” by T.R. Reid (as well as the people who already commented here), because I suspect there is more to this criticism than meets the eye (especially since Obamacare is as capitalistic as one can get, given that it requires mandatory For-Profit Health Insurance, much like we’re all required For-Profit Car Insurance if we choose to drive).

Here is more info on the Essex case.
-Tom

Mr. Szasz is correct when he says, \"What we choose to call “health insurance” is, in fact, a system of cost-shifting masquerading as a system of insurance.\"

That is the whole purpose of insurance. A large number of people pay into it so that a few people can capitalize on it when it is needed.

It is in the best interest of an insurance company to cover basic treatment so people will go to the doctor before an illness becomes critical. If someone avoids the doctor because he does not want to pay $250.00 and ends up in the ER, hospital, or surgery the company will pay out FAR more money in the long run. Better to treat a cut before it becomes infected with stiches, soap, and a bandage than to pay for a suit of antibiotics, surgery, and amputation later. Preventative maintenance may not be covered by homeowner\’s insurance but so give discounts to premiums if you have security installed or annual termite inspections.

Mr. Szasz is wrong when he says, \"We treat a public, statist political system of health care as if it were a system of private health insurance purchased for the purpose of obtaining private medical care.\"

As long as we are not talking about Nationalized Health Care I fail to see how \"Statist\" applies unless he\’s talking about Medicare. It certainly doesn\’t apply to Cigna and Kaiser. If they weren\’t making scads of money they wouldn\’t be offering the services.