3 ms·
> Then you let the family take as income any amount they don’t spend. This encourages frugality and price shopping for routine procedures. We had this, sort o
by mgkimsal 8y ago
> Then you let the family take as income any amount they don’t spend. This encourages frugality and price shopping for routine procedures.
We had this, sort of, with HSA legislation in the mid 2000s. But... you still need some sort of guarantee or insurance to deal with catastrophic issues. This is essentially what a high-deducticle insurance instrument provided. I had a $5k deductible and... $240/month premium for 2. Now.. 9 years later, it's a $10k deductible and $1300/month.
> Additionally, the government should backstop everything with catastrophic insurance
Agreed, whatever it looks like, yes, something like this. It doesn't matter how 'frual' I am or how much 'comparison shopping' I do, when I'm still on the hook for $25k out of pocket before the insurance company steps in. It is only useful for the direst of emergencies at this point, but is costing $15k/year just to have that catastrophe safety net.
And, no one does price shopping or engages in frugality when they're in any type of accident.
- seibelj 8y agoYes, thank you for restating exactly what I said. Catastrophic health insurance is actually the only insurance we should want. The concept of health “insurance” is a misnomer when it’s used to pay for routine, expected care. That’s just pre-paying for services that you must use or you are wasting money. We don’t sell home insurance that pays out for painting your house or mowing your lawn. Home insurance covers you if a fire destroys your house, pools risk, and is pretty cheap. Health insurance should cover disaster. Routine care should have a robust free market, where I can shop around for my allergy shot and MRI. This already happens for some big ticket procedures such as knee and hip replacements, where foreign hospitals compete directly with US hospitals, and even domestic competition between states.