This must be understood in the full context of the problem.
1. In terms of looking at the problem, the insurance part is the hole, and it is the cost of healthcare itself that is the doughnut. But no one is looking at the doughnut, nor trying to produce solutions that will improve the doughnut. As the doughnut gets more and more bloated, they just keep trying to expand the hole - the insurance. Trying to throw more insurance and subsidize more insurance just feeds an unrepentant bloated costing health care industrial complex.
2. The solution should not be, most of the time, “insurance” in the traditional sense. It should be consumers paying for health care directly most of the time and on most general occasions. The insurance part should be reserved for “major medical” and catastrophic situations. Yes, companies that provide insurance can provide help with consumers paying directly by providing policies that have a generous portion directed to a health savings account.
3. A third leg that is actually very cost effective for certain medical needs is “accident insurance” which is insurance that is wider - as far as accidents - than mere “auto” insurance. Accidents have a statistically accurate history in terms of measuring risk, and an accident insurance policy is financially very affordable for both the consumer and the insurer. Young folks with very good health could be enticed into starter policies that are primarily the accident insurance portion.
In sum yes “insurance” as it is now being used is the problem. It is presently being used to “insure” the bloated health care industrial complex gets every dime it wants, without it being put on a consumer driven diet.
——A third leg that is actually very cost effective for certain medical needs is “accident insurance”-—
Very interesting thought.
I agree with the concept.
See my comment #43