3 ms·

Seems to me, the GOP's entire point for letting insurers sell across state lines is precisely to force a state like California to allow substandard plans to be

by fooey 10y ago

Seems to me, the GOP's entire point for letting insurers sell across state lines is precisely to force a state like California to allow substandard plans to be sold to their citizens

virmundi 10y ago
Depends on the Federal requirements. Something that's lost in this whole conversation is the idea of insurance. I have auto insurance because I could be hit. I've gone 15 years without being hit, at least not enough to make a claim. I keep it just in case. Going to the doctor for an annual physical is not something that should be insured. It's a known cost. You, as the individual, should pay that out of pocket, or get another extended coverage policy or rider to covert that. It's like my auto insurance paying for oil changes. As a result, our costs are too high.
- fooey 10y ago
  If car insurance had to cover a 6+ figure operation replacing an old engine that was was seized up because of poor maintenance, it would make financial sense to cover oil changes as a preventative measure. A health disaster is several orders of magnitude more expensive than an automotive disaster, and you can't just total out a human being and pick up a new one at the local dealership if it's too expensive. Preventative maintenance is a money saver long term.
  - pravda 10y ago
    "Annual physicals" in asymptomatic individuals are known to be a useless waste of money and time. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/re-thinking-the-annual-physical/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/re-thinking-the-annual-phys...
  - gleb 10y ago
    By that logic car insurance would cover brake service.
    - drodgers 10y ago
      Human error causes >90% of car crashes (https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2013/12/human-error-cause-vehicle-crashes https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2013/12/human-error-cause...), so brake maintenance is a very inefficient way to reduce insurance risk. Instead, insurers penalise people based on their history of crashes (or — more importantly to the insurers — claims). The market is actually working well in that case.

by fooey 10y ago

Seems to me, the GOP's entire point for letting insurers sell across state lines is precisely to force a state like California to allow substandard plans to be sold to their citizens

virmundi 10y ago

Depends on the Federal requirements. Something that's lost in this whole conversation is the idea of insurance. I have auto insurance because I could be hit. I've gone 15 years without being hit, at least not enough to make a claim. I keep it just in case. Going to the doctor for an annual physical is not something that should be insured. It's a known cost. You, as the individual, should pay that out of pocket, or get another extended coverage policy or rider to covert that. It's like my auto insurance paying for oil changes. As a result, our costs are too high.

fooey 10y ago
If car insurance had to cover a 6+ figure operation replacing an old engine that was was seized up because of poor maintenance, it would make financial sense to cover oil changes as a preventative measure. A health disaster is several orders of magnitude more expensive than an automotive disaster, and you can't just total out a human being and pick up a new one at the local dealership if it's too expensive. Preventative maintenance is a money saver long term.
- pravda 10y ago
  "Annual physicals" in asymptomatic individuals are known to be a useless waste of money and time. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/re-thinking-the-annual-physical/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/re-thinking-the-annual-phys...
- gleb 10y ago
  By that logic car insurance would cover brake service.
  - drodgers 10y ago
    Human error causes >90% of car crashes (https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2013/12/human-error-cause-vehicle-crashes https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2013/12/human-error-cause...), so brake maintenance is a very inefficient way to reduce insurance risk. Instead, insurers penalise people based on their history of crashes (or — more importantly to the insurers — claims). The market is actually working well in that case.