Private insurance solutions will, like any other insurance, work by spreading costs among a large number of customers. Obviously, "individual insurance" does not mean that everybody is paying exactly the premiums that cover their individual costs. A diabetic gets benefits because many other people with that particular insurance company don't have diabetes, same as fire insurance pays a fire victim from premiums paid by the thousands that don't have fires.
The more rare the event, the cheaper insurance is. This is why "catastrophic" health insurance, or what my parents used to call "hospital coverage," is not that expensive. When more routine health care is covered, the price naturally skyrockets, same as car insurance would if it covered filling your gas tank.
Some people seize on the idea of risk-spreading, and say that this shows a single government insurance company would spread costs the furthest. However, a health insurance monopoly is not a good solution, and wouldn't be if it were private, either. I used to talk to starry-eyed socialists in college who insisted that it would be much more efficient if we just had one brand of everything in the stores. From a standpoint only of manufacturing efficiency, they were right. Of course, they assumed the chosen brand would be their favorite brand...
It's rare that a person gets more in health insurance benefits than they pay in premiums. That's how it's supposed to be. My wife, with MS, has certainly used more than we've paid in, and we pay a lot in. Her medicine alone would run a thousand a month without insurance.
Current Events » in reply to re: "Costs" and "expenses" are not the same thing.
Insurance
The whole thread (49 posts)
- Solutions for healthcare
- You gotta ration care to somebody
- Healthcare and unintended consequences
- Which one of those health care ideas are endorsed by the GOP leadership?
- Admmittedly the GOP does have a plan: Those who can pay get treated.
- Btw, more on costs (diabetes)
- Works for whole foods