The left won’t like it, though — it doesn’t involve involuntary wealth transfers and perverse incentives.
8 thoughts on “How To Insure Americans With Pre-Existing Conditions”
Comments are closed.
The left won’t like it, though — it doesn’t involve involuntary wealth transfers and perverse incentives.
Comments are closed.
If there’s no involuntary wealth transfer, why would the Left support it? No power, no coercion, no whips, no Mailed Fist, no Iron Boot? I mean, where are the jollies?
And without perverse incentives to kludge up the results, how would the theftists justify continuing to muck around with things in perpetuity (“Never let a crisis go to waste!”)? There’s no job security in solving problems, you know!
I think it’s a misnomer to describe the coverage as “insurance” because the event (a medical condition) already happened, whereas insurance is a hedge against future risk. Perhaps a subsidized health “loan” would be a more appropriate term, and a more appropriate model for what we’re trying to accomplish. Instead of paying money over time on the front end, you pay the money over time after the treatment.
This would remove the incentive to go without insurance, secure in the knowledge that you can pick up full coverage after you get sick and become a free-loader on the insurance system. Yet it would provide a mechanism for treating those who get caught between policies, etc, in the form of a “post-hoc” insurance. That could be combined with a state pool that helps cover those with conditions that are going to be long term and expensive, such as MS and a host of childhood conditions and syndromes.
Forcing pre-existing condition coverage onto what we know as “insurance” is like using a screwdriver as a pry-bar. It doesn’t work very well because it’s the wrong tool for the task, and then it breaks the screwdriver.
The key issue is the way in which our entire system revolves around employer-based health care.
If we had IRA-like HSAs (even with not a dime in them) then there’s a place employers can be direct-depositing tax-free health care-only funds. Slowly transition the extensive incentives employers (and insurers) have in the tax code to “provide health care” to the individual.
I would be happy with an insurance policy that acted like an insurance policy, i.e. covered *unexpected* health expenditures. As a federal employee, I supposedly have the Cadillac policy. And it’s great at paying for everything that ought to be out of pocket. But the first emergency that comes along, suddenly the insurance doesn’t cover that.
It would be interesting to see what the medical cost structure would be without all of these distortions….
it doesn’t involve involuntary wealth transfers
The article does suggest the use of subsidies in addition to abolishing price controls. Where I live we have both price controls and subsidies for people who would otherwise be uninsurable. This way insurers can still make a profit on people with preexisting conditions and will want to seek their business. Because there is supply-side competition they’ll even have to work to get their business. Price controls are not incompatible with consumer choice and supply side competition. I’m not necessarily saying they are a good idea in this case (in general they’re not), just pointing out that the logic is more complicated than the article seems to assume.
Anyone who still thinks passing Obamcare solved anything has NOT filed a thing with their insurance company since it passed.
My wife is a state employee, we have BCBS, I’m disabled and have that plus Medicare. I’ve been disabled for over 10 years and been on SSD and Medicare since 2002.
In the last 6 or 8 months we’ve had to fight for testing we needed and such. But the REAL pisser is fighting for REFILLS of drugs, some of which I’ve been taking for YEARS and cannot hardly live without!!! I could understand questioning new drugs, expensive drugs or experimental drugs. But OKing the scrip for 3 months, then denying a REFILL, is stupid and when it’s for pain meds should be criminal.
And BTW, my Medicare Part B payment went up, my SSD did not, my wife’s pay is frozen, but her insurance went up, and the coverage went down. More outgo, static income, less coverage and if stories I’m hearing are correct, we’re about average here in NC.
This is NOT the change they hoped for, is it?
I’ve spoken with a number of others on SSD and SSI. Most of us know we need to see our checks cut down from the gub’ment. I think it should be between 25% and 33%. Most people are talking 10% to 20%. Either way, somethings GOT to change and cost increases for everything under the sun isn’t going to help the economy.
I agree with George Turner. If it is for a pre-existing condition then it simply isn’t “insurance”. That would be like burning my house down and then trying to get fire insurance after the fact – i.e. fraud.