Most people use insurance in their lifetime. You purchase it for protection from a catastrophe of some sorts. You may have invested dearly in your home and wouldn't want to face replacing it should it burn down or be damaged. You are required by your state to insure your automobile against damage you could do to others and/or you want to protect yourself from liability and your automobile from damage because it represents a significant investment on your part.
All of these situations involve a “risk pool” in which you bet against others in a zero sum game. You shop for such insurance based on the risk pool the insurance company is willing to put you in. You want to be in a risk pool with others who have a risk similar to yours. You don't want to be in a risk pool with a bunch of frequent users. The risk pool you go into generally determines the premium you pay for the insurance you purchase.
For example, you don't want a home situated on a mountain top in Tennessee to be put in a risk pool with homes on the Florida coast that are subject to hurricanes. Similarly, you don't want it in with those on the Oregon coast that are subject to tsunamis or homes in Kansas that may be hit by tornadoes. You might also say no to flood insurance if the hill is high enough. Homes that are at great risk should be in a separate risk pool. I had it done to my Fort Meyers, Florida, home after the hurricane season of 2004. My insurance tripled. I had no right to expect to be put in the same risk pool as other homes in America that were not in high risk zones. The State of Florida did intervene to stop insurance companies from leaving the state but they didn't require them to put “safer homes” in the same risk pool as the homes near the ocean.
In the same light, you don't want to purchase car insurance from a company that puts you in a risk pool with drivers with DUIs or those who have frequent accidents. Of course not, this would drive up the rate you pay for a premium. Generally, high risk drivers are put in expensive “high risk pools” or denied insurance.
In the above two cases, you would also not expect the federal government to subsidize the cost of these two insurance types because of the low income of the folks seeking insurance.
But under Obamacare health insurance, this logic is thrown out the window. Insurance premium payments are subsidized up to 400% of the poverty level. High risk patients with pre-conditions and patients that have exceeded lifetime maximums in health care spending are put in the same risk pool as young, healthy users (often non-users) of health insurance. The high risk users are not charged higher premiums. Meanwhile, the healthy are forced to purchase insurance policies that often have expensive features – drugs, maternity and child care, mental health, women's reproductive services, etc. – that the buyers doesn't want and doesn't need. Of course, the premiums have skyrocketed. Unfortunately, most of these people will forgo insurance, causing the risk pool to flounder and fail. I suspect the government will have to step in and save the day with money they borrow from China.
Now I agree wholeheartedly that universal health care is a good thing. All Americans should have access to the best health care regardless of financial circumstances. Like many governments in the Western World, we should provide for care for our citizens. The two most common ways are to use the British Clinic System, where medicine is free to all citizens who sign up and walk in the door. They need not carry insurance. The alternative method is to use a “Medicare for All” approach, where a national sales tax or similar wide spread tax supports the system. Everybody in the country is in the same risk pool, which greatly spreads the risk.
But the current way the Obamacare is structured, the healthy people in America are being forced to subsidize the sick people in their insurance pool or be fined. You can't imagine a more communistic approach than that – each take according to his needs; each contribute according to his ability, with the ability to pay defined by to the state. This turns the principle of insurance into a joke, where the normal rules of “risk pool” management are skewed by law. You can't mess with economic systems -- insurance being one -- and expect success.
IMHO, Obamacare has it all wrong.
Comments are closed for this blog post