4 ms·
"with insurance only for real medical emergencies" You then have people putting off preventive care, tests etc and then you have to cover a bigger problem down
by larrys 13y ago
"with insurance only for real medical emergencies"
You then have people putting off preventive care, tests etc and then you have to cover a bigger problem down the line.
I'll give you an example. You are a landlord with a tenant and you tell the tenant "you have to take care of minor repairs I will cover anything major". As a result they don't do normal maintenance either because they forget, don't care, who knows. Then because of lack of that maintenance the compressor fails on the HVAC and you end up having to replace a unit. Good luck with trying to tie that to the lack of maintenance. Or saying you won't cover it.
- harryh 13y agoThat is an interesting hypothesis. There is, however, very little evidence to support it.
- kqr2 13y agoThe idea is to have the right incentives in place. The premium for medical emergency insurance would go down as you are more proactive in your healthcare. For example, by having an annual physical, maintaining your weight, etc. you would get a discount.
- atgm 13y ago> The idea is to have the right incentives in place. The recent article about Finland's baby box was a great example of this and their infant mortality statistics show that it worked.
- yummyfajitas 13y agoYou pay $100 for preventative care now to avoid paying the $5,000 deductible down the line.
- larrys 13y ago"care now to avoid paying the $5,000 deductible down the line." Does not answer the question of what to do with people who don't have a pot to piss in. You aren't going to deny them medical care. That's the problem. Just like you can't say "if you smoke we won't fix your lung cancer" (forgetting even if the link could be clearly established). Bottom line: You have to prevent people from their folly. Although certainly some people would respond to the incentive in your example.