Comments on: More thoughts on the healthcare debate http://www.benjamintseng.com/2009/09/more-thoughts-on-healthcare-debate/ Sat, 11 Feb 2012 06:23:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Ben http://www.benjamintseng.com/2009/09/more-thoughts-on-healthcare-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-619 Ben Thu, 03 Mar 2011 02:56:00 +0000 http://www.benjamintseng.com/2009/09/more-thoughts-on-the-healthcare-debate/#comment-619 My guess is primarily the employer-provided insurance explanation -- it leads to insurance plans being picked on things like overall sticker price/ease of integration with HR/etc rather than things like quality/type of coverage. I think one hallmark of this is how rare it is for insurance companies to actually try to segment the markets they're pursuing and provide targeted plans (the way that credit cards will chase different income/risk/employment/gender/race/etc groups with offers which allow them to serve that market better than their competitors while still getting a higher profit). My guess is primarily the employer-provided insurance explanation — it leads to insurance plans being picked on things like overall sticker price/ease of integration with HR/etc rather than things like quality/type of coverage. I think one hallmark of this is how rare it is for insurance companies to actually try to segment the markets they’re pursuing and provide targeted plans (the way that credit cards will chase different income/risk/employment/gender/race/etc groups with offers which allow them to serve that market better than their competitors while still getting a higher profit).

]]> By: Lena K. http://www.benjamintseng.com/2009/09/more-thoughts-on-healthcare-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-617 Lena K. Wed, 02 Mar 2011 01:12:00 +0000 http://www.benjamintseng.com/2009/09/more-thoughts-on-the-healthcare-debate/#comment-617 Well-said, sir. Thank you for outlining the salient points without slipping into the partisan mudslinging this topic somehow inevitably seems to evoke. Actually, I agree with a lot of what you said. Though there's one point in my mind that complicates the whole issue that I don't think you brought up: namely, *why* is it that the current market is screwed up in such a way that (as I hear) reasonably healthy people are completely denied coverage based on a pre-existing condition? Surely, there ought to be individual-based insurance companies springing up that would be willing to insure such folks for slightly higher premiums. Incidentally, this ought also to take care of the issue of insuring children -- they're good risks for the insurance companies, so shouldn't insurance be easy to find? For some reason it isn't (even for healthy newborns, which you'd think would be the lowest-risk group of all). And this smacks to me of misplaced regulation (to the tune of laws about maximum premiums or minimum coverage) somewhere in the pipeline. Or maybe it's just the whole problem of insurance companies negotiating only with employers so that the individual insurance market is too tiny to equilibrate easily. I don't really know what the deal is ... but I worry that blanket gov't patch-up measures "let's make sure everyone is forced to have health insurance with certain minimum coverage levels" without a clear understanding of what exactly is going wrong with the current system could easily end up doing more harm than good. Just my 2 cents... Well-said, sir. Thank you for outlining the salient points without slipping into the partisan mudslinging this topic somehow inevitably seems to evoke.

Actually, I agree with a lot of what you said. Though there’s one point in my mind that complicates the whole issue that I don’t think you brought up: namely, *why* is it that the current market is screwed up in such a way that (as I hear) reasonably healthy people are completely denied coverage based on a pre-existing condition? Surely, there ought to be individual-based insurance companies springing up that would be willing to insure such folks for slightly higher premiums. Incidentally, this ought also to take care of the issue of insuring children — they’re good risks for the insurance companies, so shouldn’t insurance be easy to find? For some reason it isn’t (even for healthy newborns, which you’d think would be the lowest-risk group of all). And this smacks to me of misplaced regulation (to the tune of laws about maximum premiums or minimum coverage) somewhere in the pipeline. Or maybe it’s just the whole problem of insurance companies negotiating only with employers so that the individual insurance market is too tiny to equilibrate easily. I don’t really know what the deal is … but I worry that blanket gov’t patch-up measures “let’s make sure everyone is forced to have health insurance with certain minimum coverage levels” without a clear understanding of what exactly is going wrong with the current system could easily end up doing more harm than good. Just my 2 cents…

]]> By: Lets hear it for Mike http://www.benjamintseng.com/2009/09/more-thoughts-on-healthcare-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-511 Lets hear it for Mike Mon, 06 Sep 2010 13:04:49 +0000 http://www.benjamintseng.com/2009/09/more-thoughts-on-the-healthcare-debate/#comment-511 [...] of the Top 10 downloads on the Social Sciences Research Network about healthcare policy (something I’ve blogged about several times in the past), I knew I had to recommend it to all my blog [...] [...] of the Top 10 downloads on the Social Sciences Research Network about healthcare policy (something I’ve blogged about several times in the past), I knew I had to recommend it to all my blog [...]

]]>