5 ms·
The ignorance on display here is a bit astonishing. Health insurance in MA is not equivalent to health insurance in Idaho; in MA insurance is much more tightly
by MichaelSalib 14y ago
The ignorance on display here is a bit astonishing.
Health insurance in MA is not equivalent to health insurance in Idaho; in MA insurance is much more tightly regulated so that you can rely on it. What good is a largely unregulated insurance policy that refuses to pay out when you're really sick?
Now, if Idaho had strong regulators that were enforcing the same sort of standards as MA, you might be able to compare but then you'd run smack into the fact that...the cost structures are completely different. Everything is more expensive in MA, including housing and doctors.
- kategleason 14y agoThat is a good point in comparing Idaho to MA housing and pricing costs. But then how can you justify California's low insurance monthly rates (before the new hikes that just happened this month) California: $157
- MichaelSalib 14y agoI don't know much about the state of CA insurance regulation. I live in MA. Off the top of my head, it seems like mean premium prices is going to depend on a lot of different factors, ranging from demographics (younger folks make up a larger fraction of the population in TX than in MA) to cost of living. I think your whole analysis fails because you're missing half of the Cost Benefit Analysis. You're looking only at costs, without assessing benefits. One might as well look at Somalia and proclaim how awesome it is to not have to pay taxes.
- onetwothreefour 14y agoI don't know where you're getting your figures from, but our monthly per employee rate is closer to $500/month in CA (with a family it's like $1200/month). It's going up like $20/month for 2013. Which is immaterial, since it was ridiculous to begin with, because the entire system is broken.