3 ms·
>Fix that and we would see a lot more positive developments for workers. That basically requires getting rid of private health insurance (except as supplementa
by marcinzm 7y ago
>Fix that and we would see a lot more positive developments for workers.
That basically requires getting rid of private health insurance (except as supplemental insurance) which is going to be a difficult battle.
- kasey_junk 7y agoI’m fairly ok with arguments for public only health care but that said, why would detaching health insurance from employment require the end of private health insurance completely? Thats not true for any other of the insurances I have. My car, home, flood, and life insurance all aren’t related to my employer yet still exist.
- marcinzm 7y agoEssentially pre-existing conditions (including ones the patient knows about but are not on their medical file) are a mess to deal with as they significantly spike expected costs. Healthy people have little reason for good insurance and unhealthy people are desperate for it. Car insurance is similar but that's mitigate by it being mandatory and even then pre-existing conditions (ie: accident rates) can spike insurance a lot. You can deal with it I believe by making insurance mandatory for everyone, banning all groups plans and preventing pre-existing conditions from being taken into account. Probably need some more restrictions on the fifty other ways of gouging expensive patients by insurance companies. But then you basically have government run health insurance in everything but name.
- kasey_junk 7y agoAll of the forms of insurance I mentioned are extremely regulated. All of them have adverse selection effects. All of them have good populations and bad. None of them are associated with employment and you’d think someone was crazy for suggesting they should be.
- virmundi 7y agoWhy? Private health insurance in the US is largely unaffordable due to regulations. Small businesses, ie consultancies with one practitioner, are prevented from joining together to negotiate health fees. Similar obstacles occur for individuals working 1099. How about removing those regulations first before going with a public option?
- marcinzm 7y agoThe point of having group plans is having groups. One person is not a group as groups exist to pool risk.
- virmundi 7y agoThe point is that there are laws preventing individuals from forming a group. A group is more than one. The laws disallow the many, which is defined as more than one, to make a group.
- closeparen 7y agoAll the risk pools you want to be in are employer-affiliated right now, but the individual health insurance market would be a lot more reasonable if everyone moved there at the same time.
- manigandham 7y agoI don't see why it would. If anything it would create more liquidity since the insured would no longer be grouped by employer but entire regions, states, or even a single massive group for the underwriting insurer.