Young people don't buy insurance taking the risk that they are not at a point in their lives where they will have health issues and need medical care.
So that's massive amounts of premiums that are not tapped by health insurance companies.
People at risk often 1) can't afford rated policies 2) are not accepted for coverage by insurance companies.
They end up with no care at all or get it free, paid for by our tax dollars.
So they have put NOTHING into the premium pool but are, nevertheless, able to collect on the beneficial end.
Insurance companies are disingenuous when they talk about the need to rate applicants.
It has nothing to do with avoiding monumental risks. It has everything to do with wanting to issue the policies for the cheapest rate, so that they can hopefully out bid their competitors for the low-risk customers.
If everyone were required to carry health insurance, no matter their age or health condition, prices for coverage would probably 1) diminish and 2) there wouldn't be any need for our taxes to have to support the massive numbers who don't carry insurance or who can't get it.
Excluding and rated exceptions themselves violate the definition of insurance.
posted by johnH56
We see the problem pretty clearly. The young couple with the new kid would rather have the nice car and nicer apartment instead of health insurance. The retirer would rather have food, heat and rent first over medications.
Medical insurance ain't cheap. At 20% and more of the US economy it is big business but not the only business.
It is going to take some combination of mandatory insurance and competition and price control for universal health to arrive. And then like mandatory car insurance there will be many who will try to avoid having to pay the bill.
Write in Guestbook