3 ms·

> True but you still shouldn't get that from the employer, that is part of the pricing problem. I never said that should be the case, but it should also be men

> True but you still shouldn't get that from the employer, that is part of the pricing problem. I never said that should be the case, but it should also be mentioned you don't need get your insurance from your employer anymore, under the ACA. Employers may provide it as a benefit (just like many other non-cash benefits employers may provide), but nothing's stopping you from purchasing your own insurance separately instead. > I'd argue that individual insurance is closer to auto insurance as they have high deductibles That's only true of HDHPs - you can get PPO or HMO plans instead if you prefer. > Maybe health insurance is changing into more of a catastrophic level like auto/home/life where... routine health checkups are paid mostly by the customer. Yes, that's how health insurance would operate under an actual insurance model. Routine health checkups involve no risk, so there's nothing to insure against[0]. > Personally I have never felt that routine care is acceptable to use too much as it harms the group/work policy. This is a moral hazard problem, and it's part of why it's a bad idea to consider coverage of routine care as "insurance". > [health insurance being] linked through your job/employer... causes much of the pricing issues and many other issues associated with employment/survival. I'll agree that having health insurance being tied to one's employer is bad (though as I mentioned, that's not really the case anymore). Though the pricing issues are more to do with using an insurance model to price something that is fundamentally not about risk, as well as the problems with the way the billing system is setup. I don't think the fact that having health insurance provided by the employer makes a meaningful impact on pricing in the aggregate (as opposed to in individual cases). [0] The fact that you can choose whether or not to have your annual checkup is not 'risk' in the insurance sense; it's an issue of either adverse selection or moral hazard, depending on the point at which it occurs.

drawkbox 10y ago
>> I never said that should be the case, but it should also be mentioned you don't need get your insurance from your employer anymore, under the ACA. You could before the ACA it is just the plans were not as robust. I have had independent insurance since 2009. I did it and it was actually scary starting business with this fear. I was initially rejected even though I was healthy, 30 and was applying to the same insurance I just left at my employer. The ACA, for better or worse, made this much, much easier and the plans can't be pulled out from under you or prevent you from getting one. The ACA could be a start to removing insurance from employment and benefit pricing/understanding of market value in health. >> This is a moral hazard problem, and it's part of why it's a bad idea to consider coverage of routine care as "insurance". Maybe we need health insurance and healthcare plans separate, it is moving that way in the independent insurance area. The only way for this to happen is to separate it from the employer. Side note, I worked in games and agencies previously and I saw on two occasions (right to work state) where people were let go who just had health issues that were more serious (heart, one sales guy, one developer). So when people get insurance through their company they think they are covered, but in reality insurers and companies want to pull out of that as soon as possible leaving the individual not insured and not safe. Both were let go shortly after their issues and left with now having to find a plan with a condition (before the ACA). So really, independent insurance is really closer to insurance than employer provided insurance that ends with employment or can be taken from you when you actually need it. Yes there is some buffer with CORBA and other temporary things but it is not safe in terms of being an individual who actually wants insurance in case bad things happens. If everyone got independent insurance there would be massive changes to pricing and understanding of healthcare and the insurance part (catastrophic). It might even spawn two types of insurance (catastrophic and routine) out of it or industries. Noone should lose the catastrophic side when they leave a job, it is seriously unsafe and not really insurance.

drawkbox 10y ago

>> I never said that should be the case, but it should also be mentioned you don't need get your insurance from your employer anymore, under the ACA. You could before the ACA it is just the plans were not as robust. I have had independent insurance since 2009. I did it and it was actually scary starting business with this fear. I was initially rejected even though I was healthy, 30 and was applying to the same insurance I just left at my employer. The ACA, for better or worse, made this much, much easier and the plans can't be pulled out from under you or prevent you from getting one. The ACA could be a start to removing insurance from employment and benefit pricing/understanding of market value in health. >> This is a moral hazard problem, and it's part of why it's a bad idea to consider coverage of routine care as "insurance". Maybe we need health insurance and healthcare plans separate, it is moving that way in the independent insurance area. The only way for this to happen is to separate it from the employer. Side note, I worked in games and agencies previously and I saw on two occasions (right to work state) where people were let go who just had health issues that were more serious (heart, one sales guy, one developer). So when people get insurance through their company they think they are covered, but in reality insurers and companies want to pull out of that as soon as possible leaving the individual not insured and not safe. Both were let go shortly after their issues and left with now having to find a plan with a condition (before the ACA). So really, independent insurance is really closer to insurance than employer provided insurance that ends with employment or can be taken from you when you actually need it. Yes there is some buffer with CORBA and other temporary things but it is not safe in terms of being an individual who actually wants insurance in case bad things happens. If everyone got independent insurance there would be massive changes to pricing and understanding of healthcare and the insurance part (catastrophic). It might even spawn two types of insurance (catastrophic and routine) out of it or industries. Noone should lose the catastrophic side when they leave a job, it is seriously unsafe and not really insurance.