4 ms·

I don't think in a free market private insurance would necessarily fuck people over. For example the idea of creating a catastrophic insurance plan for healthy,

I don't think in a free market private insurance would necessarily fuck people over. For example the idea of creating a catastrophic insurance plan for healthy, fit young people would be wildly profitable and beneficial for those who would sign up for it, but the government wouldn't allow it to exist because it "discriminates" against those who are unhealthy or made different lifestyle choices.

perl4ever 5y ago
>wildly profitable and beneficial How could it be both? And if it was beneficial, how could you describe the people to whom it was beneficial as "healthy and fit"? Aren't they really just people who the screening failed to identify as unhealthy?
curryst 5y ago
It depends on your definition of "fuck people over". The insurance plan for healthy, fit, young people would likely be cheap. However, they were subsidizing older and/or less fit people. The rates for the "not young, fit and healthy" plan are going to go up. Drastically. I would also be unsurprised to see that the "healthy, fit, and young" group ends up becoming the "average" group, and that they use the other group to lump together people they don't want to insure, with rates so high people can't afford to pay them. I.e. they keep you in the healthy, fit and young group until you get cancer, and then they move you over to the $7,000/month group. The current system just averages that out. Your rates are higher than they have to be when you're young, but your rates are lower than they have to be when you're old. It negates the risk by lumping everyone together. Your form of insurance doesn't do much to reduce risk because you can always be moved to another category. The insurer really just becomes a middleman between you and your medical providers then, if the goal is to allow people to pay for what they use. It's basically an HSA.

perl4ever 5y ago

>wildly profitable and beneficial How could it be both? And if it was beneficial, how could you describe the people to whom it was beneficial as "healthy and fit"? Aren't they really just people who the screening failed to identify as unhealthy?

curryst 5y ago

It depends on your definition of "fuck people over". The insurance plan for healthy, fit, young people would likely be cheap. However, they were subsidizing older and/or less fit people. The rates for the "not young, fit and healthy" plan are going to go up. Drastically. I would also be unsurprised to see that the "healthy, fit, and young" group ends up becoming the "average" group, and that they use the other group to lump together people they don't want to insure, with rates so high people can't afford to pay them. I.e. they keep you in the healthy, fit and young group until you get cancer, and then they move you over to the $7,000/month group. The current system just averages that out. Your rates are higher than they have to be when you're young, but your rates are lower than they have to be when you're old. It negates the risk by lumping everyone together. Your form of insurance doesn't do much to reduce risk because you can always be moved to another category. The insurer really just becomes a middleman between you and your medical providers then, if the goal is to allow people to pay for what they use. It's basically an HSA.