Posted on 02/09/2011 7:49:11 AM PST by SeekAndFind
I have been driving a car since I was 16 years old, which was also when I got my auto insurance under my parents' plan. It was expensive when I first started out, but as I demonstrated good driving behavior -- avoiding accidents and speeding tickets, I was encouraged by cumulative discounts including safe driver, good student, and multiple car deductions.
But when it came to my health insurance, I first started making payments on it with my first job after college. Of course, I took the cheapest plan with the fewest bells and whistles and the highest deductibles, but it provided cost containment in the setting of an emergency. But despite practicing a healthy lifestyle -- watching my diet, exercising, avoiding substance abuse, and maintaining regular physical check ups with my primary care physician, I noticed that I paid the same health insurance premiums as my colleague who consumed large amounts of junk food with a sedentary lifestyle, feeding addictions to cigarettes and alcohol, and non-compliance with his prescribed medications.
So what is the real reason for mounting health care costs in this country? Is it poor management by physicians or a poor health care system? Why are there no incentives to encourage healthy practices and fines to discourage bad behavior? Why do healthy responsible patients pay inflated premiums to cover the consequences of unhealthy lifestyles of their neighbors?
What if my health insurance were like my car insurance? To begin with, I would be required to have health insurance just as any driver is mandated to have auto insurance to drive an automobile. Sure, it's expensive at the age of 16 due to heightened risk of accidents and careless behavior but with maturity comes gradual decline in premiums with demonstration of safe driving and responsibility. In addition, various incentive programs exist for a good driving record and scholastic performance which lower the premiums significantly. Similarly, health insurance would be expensive at the onset, but with healthy lifestyle practices, responsible behavior, and physician endorsement of compliance would come discounts in health insurance premiums.
If health insurance were like car insurance, I would be responsible for obtaining it as opposed to having my employer supply it for me. After all, it's my body and my health-why do I expect someone else to be responsible for it?
If health insurance were like car insurance, I would be able to shop around for the cheapest insurance with competitive rates from multiple vendors to find a plan best suited for my lifestyle. If health insurance were like car insurance, I would not be denied insurance unless I demonstrated repeatedly offensive and ill-advised behavior.
On the other hand, what if my car insurance were like my health insurance? My employer would be required to obtain my car insurance, which means I couldn't drive if I didn't have a job. Everyone would pay the same for auto insurance regardless of driving history. The system would breed lack of accountability since there would be no incentives for good driving behavior and no repercussions for accidents or speeding. Sure it would be economical for the irresponsible driver, but only at an exorbitant cost to the safe driver and society as a whole.
There is an urgent need for major overhaul of the health care system in the United States. While the debated health care reform bill addresses some issues that warrant change, it continues to penalize the delivery of care by cutting reimbursements without providing incentives for healthy lifestyles and quality of care.
Indeed. Whenever government decides to enforce car insurance requirements, illegals are rarely if ever targeted. It is always those of us who are legal citizens who are on the business end of the law.
You get it. Republican plans suck too.
Once upon a time, individual health insurance policies were underwritten very much like auto insurance:
Auto insurance is based on the Year, Make & model of the vehicle and health questionnaires and/or medical exams were required before issuing a policy.
Medical coverage excluded pre-existing conditions( prior damage), cosmetic surgery (custom paint jobs), pregnancy (reckless behavior) and old age (worn out brakes).
So there are some parallels.
the only thing i want to change on my health insurance that i can do with my auto insurance is have the ability to buy a plan over state lines. my homeowners, auto and motorcycle plans are all from out of state companies, and are much cheaper for it.
i’ve always wondered.. why doesn’t the requirement to buy your health insurance from your own state violate the interstate commerce clause?
And that will lead to just about every disease being described as 'caused by lifestyle'. The statistics behind most of the current disease-lifestyle links are pretty shaky. Even obesity can be caused by infection - do a search on infectobesity.
Or, doctors could refuse to deal with insurance altogether and have the patient do all of the dealing instead.
Probly the sane way to handle this is to first have Tort reform to protect well meaning providers. Second..Outlaw managed care completely. Third have a two tier system. Those who can afford it can buy real insurance and others get socialized medicine complete with rationing. Or charity care. I see no other viable alternatives. The corruption and fraud now is not ‘curable’.
I agree, but I think that the end result would be a "flattening" of policies, or "a-la-carte" options, either of which would be desirable.
For instance, thtough my company, I'm covered for all mental health issues, although I have absolutely no history of problems. I'm also covered for drug and alcohol addiction (again, not going to happen). I'm also covered for pregnancy. I'm not expecting that one, either.
If, and this is impossible due to stifling regulations within many states, but if I could go to an "a-la-carte" type plan and choose NOT to be covered for a number of ailments - in effect, self-insuring for them (a risk I'm willing to take) - the policy rates would necessarily go down.
For instance, Mrs WBill chose NOT to be covered for pregnancy (that's the one thing that can be opted out of in our state). Saved us thousands per year on her health insurance.
Another point. When HMOs first came out, they were very popular, and very affordable. It represented a quantum leap forward in health care coverage, and controlling costs. They offered several plans, with different levels of coverage, and at differetn rates. What destroyed the HMO were the state legislatures that “mandated” that these plans must include all these additional features, like second opinions, maternity, chiropractic, additional days in hospital...etc. etc...there’s a huge list...and the companies had to raise premiums through the roof..
They could, and some do..but that will be pure free market economics..I welcome it...
This is a doctor? Of what? Everyone knows that age- related changes contribute to declining health. Mortality rate of humans still 100%. If this is *your* doctor, please reconsider your choice. I sincerely hope this is satire, or maybe a doctor of bean plants.
This may not answer your question but may offer some insight.
1. Companies do price various insurance products for all 50 states. The catch is they must file what they offer (coverage and rates) with each State insurance regulator. That is a cost item that could be reduced.
2. A plethora of forms would be a problem, but it is a problem the free market could deal with by voluntary standardization. What insurance is accepted may become a moot point, but unless it is allowed, how would we ever know if it could work.
The barrier is a court decision (name escapes me) that made insurance regulation the sole province of the States, and hence the added cost for all the required filings.
“why not pay more in health insurance if you smoke?”
Check your policy.
Smokers DO pay more for health coverage.
I’m sent a renewal policy every year and one of the questions on the policy is “Do you Smoke?”
Why do you think that is?
Because rates are HIGHER for smokers.
why cant my health insurance be like my life insurance?
The tier system works well in Switzerland, where everyone purchases his own private health insurance, while the employer pays All accidents, whether on the job or on the slopes. So no need for all the expense to prove the accident was work related, no work mans comp legal industry.
The tiers are ward, semi-private, and private. Most middle class people have semi-private. Gee, medical care is better if you pay more! Just like everything else.
My health insurance doesn’t ask about smoking.
This is a totally false premise. NO state requires drivers to insure themselves. The only requirement is to obtain insurance for damage that a driver may do to OTHERS. This is a basic flaw in this analogy that most pundits miss.
Righto. Our whole system sucks. Wards are a lot cheaper. Swiss system sounds good.
Mine does.
I can’t imagine one company asking about the state of your ‘health’, including smoking, and one not asking.
Insurance companies will do everything possible to make you pay as high a premium as they can.
Personally, we don’t need mandated auto insurance (given that a significant portion of those already on the road do not purchase it, and we don’t need mandated health insurance.
If people wish to purchase it (BLUE CROSS), etc, then they can. If they do not, then they shouldn’t. Same with driving. Someone who drives cautiously, and doesn’t and cannot afford insurance should have the option of not paying for it.
That being said as tanstaafl, if there is an accident, you pay the full cost.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.