But if you have a long-term medical condition, health insurance is an entirely different animal. There are two things that change the situation in a very drastic manner. First, health insurance for people with long-term conditions is not about risk reduction. These people have medical expenses all the time. They aren’t looking for health insurance because they want to protect themselves from a potential cost in the event that they get sick. They already have the costs, and they’re trying to find a way to afford it. For these people, health insurance has nothing to do with risk reduction. It’s about getting access to prohibitively expensive but critically important treatment on a regular basis.
The second thing that changes is that health insurance
companies suddenly start doing everything they can to avoid paying your
expenses. And I’m not talking about
deductibles and copays here. I mean
genuinely trying to avoid or delay covering your expenses as much as
possible. Health insurance companies
that won’t cover a pre-existing condition, or companies that withhold payment
for as long as possible. There have been
a lot of regulations passed over the past couple of decades that made things
better, but it’s still a huge mess.
Messy enough for this.
To put this in perspective, I’m going to map it to auto
insurance. Your average American with
health insurance is much like your average American with auto insurance. The whole point of the service is to offer risk
reduction. On average, you will pay more
for your insurance than you will actually get back in coverage – this is how
the insurance company makes money. But
if you happen to get unlucky and have a very expensive accident, your coverage
will pay out more than you put in. It’s
rare, but that’s the whole idea behind risk reduction. It’s the basic model for insurance.
Now imagine if you and your insurance company knew with
near-absolute certainty that you were going to get into an automobile accident
every month for the rest of your life.
Can you imagine the kind of insurance premium they’d want to charge
you? Most auto insurance companies would
jump through every hoop they could find to try and figure out a way not to sell you their product. And this is exactly what happens in the field
of health insurance for the people who genuinely need it. The people who need the product the most are
exactly the people health insurance companies don’t want to sell it to.
This is the first of two critical things that don’t happen in other industries. In fact, other industries are required to
sell their product in a non-discriminatory fashion. Take the DC subway system for example. They have several stations that are
wheelchair accessible, which typically means installing an elevator that
wouldn’t otherwise be installed. And
whenever an elevator breaks down, they offer shuttle services to mobility
impaired customers. All of this costs
money, and yet we don’t see the metro charging people in wheelchairs more for
these services. In fact, nearly every
industry in the nation charges the same rates for their products, even to
customers who are more expensive to service.
We don’t see Wal-Mart or McDonalds charging more to people in
wheelchairs to cover the cost of installing access ramps or accessible rest
rooms. And coud you imagine the kind of backlash Burger Kind would recieve if the tried to jack of their prices for a starving customer? Yet auto insurance companies
can charge you more simply because you’re male or you own a red car. And health insurance companies can refuse to
sell you the standard product if you’re disabled
And what about the second critical difference? Well let me ask you a question. How many of you have ever decided what
company to purchase your health insurance from?
With most forms of insurance, auto or homeowners or whatever, you have a
whole bunch of companies that you can choose from. If Safe Auto is refusing to cover you or
charging you outlandish fees or otherwise being a terrible company, you can ask
Allstate to make you a better deal. Just
like you could choose to go to Burger Kind if McDonalds suddenly decided that being
pleasant to customers was old-fashioned.
This is the linchpin of capitalism.
The whole idea behind a free marked is that competition between
companies will keep the individual from getting squashed, because the
individual has the power to shop elsewhere if a company isn’t meeting their
standards.
But for most Americans, health insurance comes through
employment. And most employers offer you
exactly one health insurance plan. In my
own case, I can receive health insurance from one and only one provider through
my employment. Technically I could shop around for better coverage. But since other insurance companies aren’t
subsidized by my employer, I’d have to pay significantly more to buy insurance
from a different group. And this is the
case for most Americans. Generally
speaking, your health insurance company is picked for you by your
employer. If you want to switch, you
will have to either pay a significantly larger premium, or find another
job. So while there still is some competition
in that health insurance companies must compete for contracts with employers,
the power of shopping around does not lie with the individual like it does in
other industries. So if one health
insurance company isn’t meeting an individual’s needs, it is very difficult for that individual to
take their business elsewhere. And this
dilutes the effect of competition, which causes problems for a free-market
system.
To reiterate, the following are reasons capitalism is not working for the health insurance industry:
To reiterate, the following are reasons capitalism is not working for the health insurance industry:
1. Individuals can't choose who to buy health insurance from.
2. Health insurance companies, like most insurance companies, engage in blatant discrimination. I'm not going to sugar coat this in the name of political correctness. If you charge me more for insurance just because I'm male (e.g. Auto) or I have a disability (e.g. Health), then you're discriminating. Other companies aren't doing this kind of thing. Why are we letting insurance companies do it?
3. What health insurance companies try to sell is not what Americans with medical conditions are trying to use health insurance to obtain. What these people actually need is affordable heatlh care. But the insuracne industry is all about selling risk reduction.
The first problem seems like it shouldn't be too hard to fix. And yet, it also seems like solving it would not have a large enough effect. What we really need is a solution to problems 2 or 3. Either make sure health insurance companies offer genuine "risk reduction" at the same price even to people with ludicrously high risk, or just do away with the idea of health insurance altogether by making healthcare affordable.
IF the first option can be kept profitable for the insurance industry while actually solving the problem (as in, not making health insurance prohibitively expensive), then I see no real problem with it. We could keep health insurance as a private, profit-driven industry so long as we make it play by the rules. We don't let other companies engage in blatant discrimination in the pursuit of profit. I see no reason for us to lower our standards for health insurance.
But if the first option cannot be kept profitable, then we have a problem. If health insurance is an industry that can't turn a profit without breaking the rules, then why are we trying to force it into a profit-driven economic model?
2. Health insurance companies, like most insurance companies, engage in blatant discrimination. I'm not going to sugar coat this in the name of political correctness. If you charge me more for insurance just because I'm male (e.g. Auto) or I have a disability (e.g. Health), then you're discriminating. Other companies aren't doing this kind of thing. Why are we letting insurance companies do it?
3. What health insurance companies try to sell is not what Americans with medical conditions are trying to use health insurance to obtain. What these people actually need is affordable heatlh care. But the insuracne industry is all about selling risk reduction.
The first problem seems like it shouldn't be too hard to fix. And yet, it also seems like solving it would not have a large enough effect. What we really need is a solution to problems 2 or 3. Either make sure health insurance companies offer genuine "risk reduction" at the same price even to people with ludicrously high risk, or just do away with the idea of health insurance altogether by making healthcare affordable.
IF the first option can be kept profitable for the insurance industry while actually solving the problem (as in, not making health insurance prohibitively expensive), then I see no real problem with it. We could keep health insurance as a private, profit-driven industry so long as we make it play by the rules. We don't let other companies engage in blatant discrimination in the pursuit of profit. I see no reason for us to lower our standards for health insurance.
But if the first option cannot be kept profitable, then we have a problem. If health insurance is an industry that can't turn a profit without breaking the rules, then why are we trying to force it into a profit-driven economic model?
No comments:
Post a Comment