True enough. My 20-something mechanical-engineer son is in that category -- he doesn't need "maintenance" type of health insurance, but is worried about having an accident or catastrophe.
Romney has pushed (I think in Mass.) for private health insurance companies to create a 'catastrophe-only' type of health insurance.
The purchaser would pay for his or her REGULAR doctor visits, but would be covered in event of a life-changing accident.
To me, THAT is the right way to go. Plus, catastrophic insurance is NOT that expensive, if ins. companies could pool their resources.
It's dumb for us (me included) to consider health insurance to be something used for every day health maintenance, even though regular care can get very expensive.
This catastrophe plan would serve two purposes -- it would give piece-of-mind, and it would encourage people to question all the unnecessary tests and procedures many doctors NOW mandate.
If 'frivolous' lawsuit tort reform were to be enacted at the same time, this would go a LONG WAY toward solving many problems in today's US health system.
And if that was accompanied by tax free HSA's, most people would be far better off.
And -
If 'frivolous' lawsuit tort reform were to be enacted at the same time, this would go a LONG WAY toward solving many problems in today's US health system.
I know for sure cases where expensive tests were done to protect the doctor. Patients don't even get a choice whether to skip these tests. That's needless expense.