you are right in some (most) instances. But requiring everyone to stay covered across their whole life cycle will also require people in their 20s and 30s to remain covered. Many of these people take the calculated risk that they won't need coverage until they are older, and if they DO have a catastrophic event in the meantime, it will be before they will have accumulated significant assets that can be taken from them. Forcing THESE people into the system does reduce overall costs. Also forcing people into the system gives them access to less costly (in the long run) preventative care that hopefully they will utilize (since they have already paid for it) which also would lower overall costs.
that said.... it is hard to imagine that these cost benefits will outweigh some of the other increased costs from covering more people. HOwever, it is NOT hard to imagine that the coverage that these people receive will then be provided MUCH more efficiently (than catastrophic e-r care). So even if overall costs go up some, you are getting more than $1 in increased service for every $1 formally programmed.
|