Jump to content
No, if a pool has too many people in poor health choosing to be in that pool and another pool that are healthy then the actuarial results are just as skewed as for a small pool. As long as there is a system where it is profitable for a health insurance company to attract healthy and not unhealthy patients then it is better business to manage your pool than worrying about providing health care. At that point just subcontract out the health care.
Easy enough to have a health insurance ad showing a competitive runner doing a VOx test next to searches for running shoes. Ad attracts runners and will never be seen by those with health issues.
Yeah, learn the lesson that if you "borrow" a truck that it becomes "stolen" when wrecked so that insurance covers it.
"A man was arrested on suspicion of stealing his employer’s truck, careless driving and DUI."
Sounds like the old letting someone "borrow" a truck, but when crashed then it becomes stolen so that insurance covers the repairs.
No picture of this "Dinosaur Man"?
So how do you deal with competitive advantage resulting from insurance companies signing up healthier people? It has already been happening with insurance companies targeting their advertising to people with interest in healthy activities.
The reason that large pools get lower prices is that the large pool will be more random and representative of the overall population. While small pools that provide good care tend to attract those with pressing medical needs.
I think the problem is that we have come to expect the same health insurance company will handle A-Z of medical issues.
That, for instance, the Swiss system has a price control system for the minimal essential health care. Thus, there is no advantage for health insurance companies selecting the healthier people and avoiding the less healthy. Then the Swiss system has what we would call supplemental insurance so that you can decide if you want to keep your doctor or are happy going to a lower cost clinic, etc.
I have not seen a very persuasive case of why their should be a senior's pass at a lower price. Seems to me that a senior could easily spend as much time skiing as an adult with a pass. A retired senior has more time to ski than an working adult.
Thus, I find it easy to understand why Vail Resorts do not sell discounted senior passes. The big difference is that Vail Resorts also sells a discounted season pass for less than Ski Corps season pass with just a handful of black out dates. Thus, allowing seniors (and adults) to keep skiing within their budget. A few blackout dates shouldn't be a significant drawback to seniors or many workers that can't get time off on the busiest tourism days.
2017 SB is a long ways from 1980s SB. I didn't move here until early 90s, but it was then far more of a ski bum town in which scrounging for work from April to December was the challenging part of living here. Now the economy is far more about year round residents.
It is obvious that Mr Kavovit was far more of a victim of the opiod epidemic than profiting from it.
Why not print the names of the doctors that originally prescribed addictive opiods to Mr Kavovit, the woman's boyfriend that accused Mr Kavovit, and every other opiod addict in the valley? They are the ones that ended up making money from those whose lives they have ruined.
I think many people in the US would accept the Swiss system and it is the sort of system that would tend to reduce costs. I think the description of no profits on basic care is debatable. It is my understanding that basic care has price controls so a super efficient lower cost practice could make money and a less efficient practice could lose money providing basic care.
The supplemental care, paid by patient or their supplemental insurance, is not regulated and thus expected to be profitable.
Yes, it is well documented in studies and I have personally observed it as well that the hardest part of treatment is the need for different friends and a different lifestyle so that don't start using again.
Well, VA provides health care at a substantially lower cost than Medicare. It is clear that allowing vets to visit local doctors costs much more than treating them in VA hospitals.
Also, Kaiser Permanent charges 10-15% less than other health insurance companies, but does not completely dominate the health insurance market.
The obvious conclusion is that buyers of health insurance are insulated from the actual costs and even those with little money are able to select more expensive plans.
Last login: Sunday, March 12, 2017
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2017 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |