3 ms·
>Don't cover 100% -- that way people whose spouses have better coverage won't cost you anything. That's a surprisingly and annoyingly bad incentive. Like, it p
by ThrustVectoring 10y ago
>Don't cover 100% -- that way people whose spouses have better coverage won't cost you anything.
That's a surprisingly and annoyingly bad incentive. Like, it punishes companies for providing excellent medical coverage by basically making a cash transfer to companies providing shittier coverage to their employees' family members. There's some countering incentives for very high-value employees, where they really really care about medical coverage because their spouse is stuck with shitty coverage, but overall it pretty well sucks.
- gumby 10y agoI don't know a better way to manage this incentive (I mean on a global, society level I mean). Any ideas? In the case of smaller companies, there really isn't any choice: we don't get the good group plans. If it were free of course everyone would sign up, and then the company would be paying a large premium to the ins co for something the emp wouldn't use -- and for the emp, if they filed a claim they'd have a real problem because each insurance company would claim the other should cover the expense (I know this from experience). The trick is to make a bigger group. Someone like YC could probably get all their portfolio companies into a single group. Individuals can join IEEE which makes a group, but you can't enroll your company in that.
- ThrustVectoring 10y agoIt's fairly straightforward to fix - single payer. That's not easy to, like, actually do, since there's established interests in the current system. But it is simple to describe.