3 ms·

Because "health insurance" is not designed or used as "insurance" anymore. Real insurance takes into account numerous factors which rate your risks of something

Because "health insurance" is not designed or used as "insurance" anymore. Real insurance takes into account numerous factors which rate your risks of something bad happening to you and comes up with a rate tied to your particular set of circumstances that influence that risk. Unfortunately, when "health insurance" covers day to day conditions, procedures, etc and costs the same for everyone regardless of circumstances, then it's no longer "insurance" but effectively pre-paying for access to a set of services.. and hopefully, it's services that you want and might actually need. In the US, it's more of a "healthcare access fee" than "health insurance."

antiterra 7y ago
This sounds like armchair musing rather than a determination from actual data. It generally costs a lot more to treat problems as they arise than it does to prevent them. Paying up front for day to day procedures would significantly reduce the burden that guaranteed emergent care places on society already. It also potentially makes federal programs such as SSI/medicare cheaper as previously insured people are much more likely to be healthy. The numbers are subject to some debate, eg the arguments over the Mercatus Medicare For All paper, but hand waving and claiming insurance that covers day to day procedures isn’t actually insurance is dubious. Not to mention, many modern plans have high-deductibles and function as you suggest, to where a healthy person may receive little covered service but also pay less out of pocket. https://www.amsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/CaseForUHC.pdf https://www.amsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/CaseForUHC.p...
- caseysoftware 7y ago
  I think you misunderstood me. I'm not proposing any policy or treatment changes. My point is calling what we have "health insurance" is confusing at best and deceptive at worst, so let's call it by a better name. That may cause policy changes if people's mindset and behavior shift but at least we're building on better models of the world.

antiterra 7y ago

This sounds like armchair musing rather than a determination from actual data. It generally costs a lot more to treat problems as they arise than it does to prevent them. Paying up front for day to day procedures would significantly reduce the burden that guaranteed emergent care places on society already. It also potentially makes federal programs such as SSI/medicare cheaper as previously insured people are much more likely to be healthy. The numbers are subject to some debate, eg the arguments over the Mercatus Medicare For All paper, but hand waving and claiming insurance that covers day to day procedures isn’t actually insurance is dubious. Not to mention, many modern plans have high-deductibles and function as you suggest, to where a healthy person may receive little covered service but also pay less out of pocket. https://www.amsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/CaseForUHC.pdf https://www.amsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/CaseForUHC.p...

caseysoftware 7y ago
I think you misunderstood me. I'm not proposing any policy or treatment changes. My point is calling what we have "health insurance" is confusing at best and deceptive at worst, so let's call it by a better name. That may cause policy changes if people's mindset and behavior shift but at least we're building on better models of the world.