It did in Maine and other Northeastern states, who destroyed their markets in the wake of the failed Hillarycare. This was one of the benign tenets of those changes.
And Obamacare mandated the purchase of insurance under penalty of an ever-increasing fine/tax. Obamacare was supposed to lower costs by $2,500 per family, but just the opposite has happened with higher premiums and deductibles, which reduce access to healthcare. You can't keep your doctor or hospital.
I wasn't referring to any of that.
Lots of insurance is "cafeteria style." Automobile and homeowner policies are just two examples. There are certain minimums required by the states and insurance companies, but you can buy insurance tailored to your individual needs.
It's a big nothing burger....One to three percent.
Like I said, they cancel each other out. It's good for the patients and the underwriters. Most of the free-market reforms are.
It is what patient centered healthcare is all about.
Actually only slightly. It's more about HSAs, and allowing the patient to choose exactly what they wish to spend their own money on, and where to spend it. It also should include allowing the patient to easily find the costs of identical procedures and pharmaceuticals at different provider locations, so they can "shop around".
>>The subsequent and insignificant premium increase of 1 to 3 percent is peanuts<<
It's been studied....to death...in Maine...every aspect of our market destruction by the RATs in 1993. Premiums went up 150 - 300%. The culprits were: Killing the High Risk Pool, and enacting "community rating"....
This made it impossible for carriers to sell "insurance". Most of them left the state.
"Mandated coverages" had nothing to do with it.
You can establish separate risk pools for various groups, even with government subsidies. It would be cheaper than throwing them all into the same group.
That would be my position, except for the government subsidy (well, only for start-up seed money) which had already happened in 31 states.
A small percentage of the public uses the lion's share of health costs.
In our case, 1% of the insured consumed 50% of the claims. Meaning that particular 1% needed to be in the HRP.
Actually only slightly. It's more about HSAs, and allowing the patient to choose exactly what they wish to spend their own money on, and where to spend it. It also should include allowing the patient to easily find the costs of identical procedures and pharmaceuticals at different provider locations, so they can "shop around".
What do you do with the 80 million on Medicaid? Are HSA's the answer for them or for low wage workers who really don't have that much discretionary income or the need for tax advantages? HSA's are limited in their use.