5 ms·

These exchange requirements are set up to avoid "free-riders", a problem caused by the mandatory disregard of pre-existing conditions. The logic is quite inter

by nickff 13y ago

These exchange requirements are set up to avoid "free-riders", a problem caused by the mandatory disregard of pre-existing conditions. The logic is quite interesting, as the regulations create problems which must be solved by further intervention; this causes ever-increasing levels of interference in the market.

SilasX 13y ago
No, that's unrelated and handled by the mandate. Note that the exchanges still have to take newcomers in the future; making people do it during arbitrary windows does nothing about the free rider problem.
- nickff 13y ago
  I think the idea is that restricting the enrollment period will cause uncertainty (or fear) that the citizen may 'miss out' on the opportunity to save money on treatment throughout the year. Restricted enrollment periods also make government oversight and regulation simpler. As far as I can see the mandate has a separate goal, and was intended to penalize non-consumption of insurance, as well as broaden the customer base, while not being so high as to be a potentially unconstitutional compulsion. I do not think this is system is well thought-out or particularly good, but this is the only explanation I can find.
  - SilasX 13y ago
    So, in other words, the enrollment window restrictions have nothing to do with the free rider problem, and can't be justified on that basis?
    - nickff 13y ago
      From my last post: >the idea is that restricting the enrollment period will cause uncertainty (or fear) that the citizen may 'miss out' on the opportunity to save money on treatment throughout the year. I believe this logic shows that enrollment periods are reasonably related (, Supreme Court language for constitutionally permissible,) to the free rider issue. Whether it is a sufficient justification for government intrusion into independent decision making by citizens is a completely different, and entirely normative judgement.

by nickff 13y ago

SilasX 13y ago

No, that's unrelated and handled by the mandate. Note that the exchanges still have to take newcomers in the future; making people do it during arbitrary windows does nothing about the free rider problem.

nickff 13y ago
I think the idea is that restricting the enrollment period will cause uncertainty (or fear) that the citizen may 'miss out' on the opportunity to save money on treatment throughout the year. Restricted enrollment periods also make government oversight and regulation simpler. As far as I can see the mandate has a separate goal, and was intended to penalize non-consumption of insurance, as well as broaden the customer base, while not being so high as to be a potentially unconstitutional compulsion. I do not think this is system is well thought-out or particularly good, but this is the only explanation I can find.
- SilasX 13y ago
  So, in other words, the enrollment window restrictions have nothing to do with the free rider problem, and can't be justified on that basis?
  - nickff 13y ago
    From my last post: >the idea is that restricting the enrollment period will cause uncertainty (or fear) that the citizen may 'miss out' on the opportunity to save money on treatment throughout the year. I believe this logic shows that enrollment periods are reasonably related (, Supreme Court language for constitutionally permissible,) to the free rider issue. Whether it is a sufficient justification for government intrusion into independent decision making by citizens is a completely different, and entirely normative judgement.