Quote:
Originally Posted by alexamenos
There's a very big difference between socialist redistribution schemes and insurance companies.
What insurance companies do first and foremost is discriminate. They discriminate between healthy and unhealthy, between the old and the young, between those with and those without medical conditions.
As I read your comments, I invariably come to the impression that discrimination by insurance companies is a problem to be solved.
The 'fix' as you suggest seems to involve a great deal of central planning by the state in order to arrive at a system where each pays according to his ability and receives according to his needs. The reason I call this a socialist redistribution scheme is not to hype some bogeyman, but instead because it's the most accurate description I can think of. |
insurance companies don't "discriminate", they use data to correctly assign risk.
this is not that difficult to do, and there are instances where the data (actuarial tables) end up in error. that's when the insurers lose money, and if they do this repeatedly the insurer goes out of business.
the insurer understands that when a health insurance policy is issued, they will eventually need to pay a claim. there is really no such thing as an insured person who never gets ill, everybody at some point in time will be afflicted.
the insured does not "pay according to their ability", they pay according to the risk pool they are a part of.
in the case of the universal coverage, the risk pool is expanded about 20% over the current amount. this addition to the pool of those covered will include higher and lower risk insured, pretty much parallel to what is currently covered.
people will pay a premium just like they do today, a premium that is aligned with the risk tables. those tables won't show a material change.
no socialism involved.