13 April 2013

...for sufficiently narrow values of "everybody."

Bloomberg BusinessWeek | Alex Nussbaum | Insurers Scream Rate Shock. Is It for Real?

To compensate [for having to ignore preexisting conditions, offer generous benefits, and being unable to fully account for customers' age] insurers say they'll have no choice but to raise rates, particularly on young, healthy people. ...

"It's the people from 26 to 45 that you want to make sure are in the pool to balance it out," [Karen Ignagni, CEO of the health insurers' lobbying group] says. "It's in everybody's best interests to get the young and the healthy into the system."
Everybody's interests? Not the interests of the young and they healthy, you selfish, rent-seeking harpy.

8 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  2. When they say everybody, they mean everybody who doesn't want rates to go up, I guess.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. everybody == just people who are sicker than average

      Delete
  3. Original Article: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-03-28/obamacare-scare-double-digit-premium-hikes

    I find it interesting to draw a comparison between health insurance and auto insurance. Imagine the number of people who would be up in arms if they had to contribute towards the more expensive rates of people who've been convicted of drunk driving. Insurance companies know that those customers are too much of a liability and drop them. But that option won't exist here... which is setting up the insurance companies for failure. This is the same issue faced by the US Post Office. They might want to cut out services that are not economical (days of delivery and supported locations), but are effectively forced to maintain those services.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "which is setting up the insurance companies for failure."

    But of course. Remember that in unguarded moments leftists admit the goal is the destruction of the insurance companies and thus single payer coverage.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm not so sure many leftists have bothered to think it through this far. I think a lot of them latched on to a more immediate goal: redistribution through third parties. It's a lot easier to rob Peter to pay Paul when the State doesn't have to do it itself, but can instead force someone else -- insurance companies landlords, employers, etc. -- to do it for them.

    Then again, I think a lot of people have just bought the false premise of "insurance markets requiring risk pooling" and left it at that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It doesn't require a lot of people knowing about it, though, just a core.

      Delete
    2. True, but it does change how we should engage with the other people. You might be able to change the minds of some of the people in either camp I described, but you wouldn't be very successful if your jumping off point is "you're just trying to sneak in single-payer through the back door, you socialist!" For people who haven't thought it through that far you're going to sound like a lunatic.

      Delete