3 ms·

You don't have to pass the class you just can't get kicked out of the school. One BIG caveat with these plans is that coverage ends if you leave school. That'

by antcas 6y ago

You don't have to pass the class you just can't get kicked out of the school. One BIG caveat with these plans is that coverage ends if you leave school. That's how the insurers cover their asses. They're able to provide cheaper plans because many of the sickest will drop out. It's dumb. Read this article by Charles Gaba for deeper insights than I can muster: http://acasignups.net/20/08/26/updated-how-much-can-risk-pools-vary-heres-stunning-real-world-example http://acasignups.net/20/08/26/updated-how-much-can-risk-poo...

jjoonathan 6y ago
That's not dumb, that's evil.
- antcas 6y ago
  Why not both?
  - Skunkleton 6y ago
    Because it isn't dumb.
- kube-system 6y ago
  Or neither dumb or evil, but just an expected result of the way group insurance works. 1. University: Has group of people they want to insure 2. Insurer: Measures risk of that group You're either in the group or your not. Sick people drop out of school not because insurance is making them drop out, but because academics is hard to do when your health issue prevents you from doing so. The people at fault are your representatives, who forgot about university group plans when drafting COBRA.
  - jjoonathan 6y ago
    As long as it exists, private health insurance will incentivize providers to cherry-pick, lemon-drop, and sell insurance that they have every intention of not making good on. Those are the core "innovations" they are in a position to deliver, and they are the core innovations that get delivered. The concept is evil, the act of carrying it out is evil, and regulators are to blame precisely to the extent that they allow private health insurance to exist in the first place. They are complicit, to be sure, but "simply following incentives" does not absolve the private side of this equation from moral responsibility. Legal responsibility, yes, moral responsibility, no. Hence: evil.
    - kube-system 6y ago
      What would a moral insurance company do to fulfill their moral obligation in the above example?
      - jjoonathan 6y ago
        Are they a company that maximizes their profit or are they moral? In this case, the profit motive points in the wrong direction, so they can't be both.
        kube-system 6y ago
        The implied “all for-profit companies are evil” argument is radically oversimplified, IMO. It is possible to maximize profit by efficiently providing value. Most of the downward pressure to cut corners in any industry is not from profiteers but from customers themselves.
newen 6y ago
This apply to a lot of jobs too? You get fired when you are too sick to work and consequently lose your insurance?

by antcas 6y ago

jjoonathan 6y ago

That's not dumb, that's evil.

antcas 6y ago
Why not both?
- Skunkleton 6y ago
  Because it isn't dumb.
kube-system 6y ago
Or neither dumb or evil, but just an expected result of the way group insurance works. 1. University: Has group of people they want to insure 2. Insurer: Measures risk of that group You're either in the group or your not. Sick people drop out of school not because insurance is making them drop out, but because academics is hard to do when your health issue prevents you from doing so. The people at fault are your representatives, who forgot about university group plans when drafting COBRA.
- jjoonathan 6y ago
  As long as it exists, private health insurance will incentivize providers to cherry-pick, lemon-drop, and sell insurance that they have every intention of not making good on. Those are the core "innovations" they are in a position to deliver, and they are the core innovations that get delivered. The concept is evil, the act of carrying it out is evil, and regulators are to blame precisely to the extent that they allow private health insurance to exist in the first place. They are complicit, to be sure, but "simply following incentives" does not absolve the private side of this equation from moral responsibility. Legal responsibility, yes, moral responsibility, no. Hence: evil.
  - kube-system 6y ago
    What would a moral insurance company do to fulfill their moral obligation in the above example?
    - jjoonathan 6y ago
      Are they a company that maximizes their profit or are they moral? In this case, the profit motive points in the wrong direction, so they can't be both.
      - kube-system 6y ago
        The implied “all for-profit companies are evil” argument is radically oversimplified, IMO. It is possible to maximize profit by efficiently providing value. Most of the downward pressure to cut corners in any industry is not from profiteers but from customers themselves.

newen 6y ago

This apply to a lot of jobs too? You get fired when you are too sick to work and consequently lose your insurance?