tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5794535954827182754.post3229518022160086486..comments2024-02-17T04:06:00.805-05:00Comments on Just Not Said: How insurance rates are figuredJohn Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08729625146043379286noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5794535954827182754.post-11596587058806888572010-02-05T12:05:29.929-05:002010-02-05T12:05:29.929-05:00Guy -- You are absolutely right in your analysis. ...Guy -- You are absolutely right in your analysis. People with "free" insurance from their employers tend to be the worst abusers of it in terms of getting excess, unneeded medical care which the rest of us have to pay for. And there certainly needs to be more competition across state lines. And the entire system is rigged so that there's not much choice and we don't really see what we're paying for. Finally, I agree that getting rid of these problems will prove near impossible. (And Obamacare is certainly not the answer.)John Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08729625146043379286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5794535954827182754.post-66383795589178400052010-02-05T11:58:40.449-05:002010-02-05T11:58:40.449-05:00I've never thought of US health insurance as c...I've never thought of US health insurance as comparable to conventional auto or home "insurance". The element representing protection against "catastrophic" loss is similar, but not the large part of the market dealing with "routine" healthcare. The latter is bound to work differently: for example, as healthcare becomes a "free" good on the margin, people generally consume more of it. In contrast, not many of us want more auto accidents or cancer treatments, even if the marginal financial cost is zero. <br /><br />In addition, in my view the market is hugely inefficient, because of regulation (particularly at the state level), because of concentration, because of lack of transparency (complexity makes it easier for the players to obscure economics), and because most have employer purchased health care.<br /><br />If there were more competition and personal responsibility for costs, and fewer regulatory barriers, my expectation is that you would be able to lower cost insurance based on your "claims history" as well as your health metrics because you would be a member of a good customer segment for a competitive company to serve. You might even find policies where you would be eligible for "no claims" or "low claims" bonuses. <br /><br />But the whole system today is based on forced cross-subsidy (more so if Obamacare is enacted), so good luck!<br />GAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com