8 ms·

You're confusing insurance with healthcare. Insurance is supposed to be for risk mitigation, rare but extremely damaging events. If everyone uses insurance for

You're confusing insurance with healthcare. Insurance is supposed to be for risk mitigation, rare but extremely damaging events. If everyone uses insurance for everything health related, like we all want to do now, it's impossible for insurance to be anything other than a premium you pay on top of your healthcare costs. Insurance shouldn't be used for routine stuff, and people shouldn't be required to have it unless they want it.

subverter 9y ago
A salient distinction that's very important in the whole debate.
maxerickson 9y ago
it's impossible for insurance to be anything other than a premium you pay on top of your healthcare costs. And yet each year there are millions of people that receive medical services in excess of their insurance payments (including premiums, copays, etc).
- antisthenes 9y ago
  Which doesn't invalidate what the parent comment in any way, because we're talking about the aggregate costs. So what was your point?
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    The premium on top of aggregate cost complaint would also apply to "pure insurance". Or else no one would bother selling it. Anyway, I'm pretty sure they were saying that insurance didn't work, which is manifestly untrue. If they are complaining that it makes healthcare more expensive, well fine, but that is probably more about the principal agent problem than the administrative costs and profits of insurers.
ZeroGravitas 9y ago
"insurance" in this case is also a savings account. People need to be forced to put money into the system when young and/or healthy so that's there's enough money available when they are not. If they're not forced to do this, then they won't and people are forced to stand by and watch as they fall ill and due which is bad for the economy and may already disease, even if you don't care about the moral aspects. There's little benefit to seperating these things out and obvious downsides to them not being mandated.

subverter 9y ago

A salient distinction that's very important in the whole debate.

maxerickson 9y ago

it's impossible for insurance to be anything other than a premium you pay on top of your healthcare costs. And yet each year there are millions of people that receive medical services in excess of their insurance payments (including premiums, copays, etc).

antisthenes 9y ago
Which doesn't invalidate what the parent comment in any way, because we're talking about the aggregate costs. So what was your point?
- maxerickson 9y ago
  The premium on top of aggregate cost complaint would also apply to "pure insurance". Or else no one would bother selling it. Anyway, I'm pretty sure they were saying that insurance didn't work, which is manifestly untrue. If they are complaining that it makes healthcare more expensive, well fine, but that is probably more about the principal agent problem than the administrative costs and profits of insurers.

ZeroGravitas 9y ago

"insurance" in this case is also a savings account. People need to be forced to put money into the system when young and/or healthy so that's there's enough money available when they are not. If they're not forced to do this, then they won't and people are forced to stand by and watch as they fall ill and due which is bad for the economy and may already disease, even if you don't care about the moral aspects. There's little benefit to seperating these things out and obvious downsides to them not being mandated.