Healthy people only buy insurance when they get sick.
Why not allow folks to just buy catastrophic protection?
People shouldn’t be required to have health insurance when they don’t need it.
Then they're not "healthy people". That's not how it's supposed to work. There should be unlimited underwriting to slash premiums for healthy people.
Uninsured sickly applicants with a guaranteed $100K annual claim need to go in the HRPs.
If you know ahead of time when you'll need it then it isn't "insurance" is it?
>People shouldn’t be required to have health insurance when they don’t >need it.
I agree 100%.
Okay so in 2 years a person with catastrophic coverage gets some debilitating disease. At that point what happens? One time coverage and next year? In 4 years with bills running 200k a year? Either you find the premium to be 50k a year or you go without. Of course if you want to smooth out that bumpy road you could get an addendum on your catastrophic care where say your premiums can’t increase more than 10% a year. The question is how much more would that cost? Likely a double if not more because even if you’re paying 5000 a year for such coverage for a family of 4 and something requiring expensive long term care comes along the insurer could still be out millions.
I truly don’t see that as an effective solution. I’m not saying people shouldn’t have the right to get it but i don’t see it as a solution. All along i felt repeal was a longshot. They’ll have to implement something to replace it. It will end up being one step with both things happening, not 2.
Absolutely true!
Nor should they get benefits when they get sick when they didn't need, nor have, insurance!
It's a positive no-brainer!
The real issue is, if you've had insurance over the years, and you get sick, then your policy must remain in force without financial penalties! Or else you didn't really have insurance in the first place!!!
That's where the regulatory rhubarb resides.