This is but one of many health insurance ideas on which I have cogent comments.
A distinction ought to be made when buying insurance between the need for catastrophic insurance and buying coverage for a probable event. You buy insurance should you have an automobile accident and not for the purchase of gasoline you will definitely need for the auto.
In the same way, you buy health insurance in case you get an illness worse than a common cold. If you get married and intend to have several kids, you are not getting sick. You are anticipating having kids and need coverage for that. It’s not anticipating a catastrophe such as being in an accident or getting very sick. Unless childbirth evolves into a medical emergency. Routine childbirth costs can be reduced under competitive conditions much lower then they are today, without government interference.
There ought to be means of separating these two kinds of costs.
On top of all this, malpractice suits have gotten out of hand, especially with maternity awards. That affects this absurd situation much further. The reason why I mention the childbirth factor.
These two coverage-path distortions are now thrown together into a common health insurance package by left-leaning politicians that skew the numbers even more.
There is a health insurance solution . Take the problem apart in steps. Revamp present tax incentives. Guarantee coverage. Consider the childbirth factor.
By keeping government hands out of a one-plan-fits-all solution. By having the ability and competition of almost 1500 private insurers compete nationally.
No comments:
Post a Comment