Skip to main content

View Diary: Religious freedom frauds (230 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  under ACA, heath insurance not based on economics (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coffeetalk, DRo, raynmakr

    of insurance.  It is more like a tax program with government defined benefits with subsidies across groups.  Examples of cross subsidies include the young subsidizing the old, males subsidizing females.  This is not a criticism of ACA, this is how ACA was intentionally designed.  What were once health insurance companies play a role in ACA for political and historic reason, and they are still called insurance companies, even though they no longer operate as economics understands insurance.

    Under the economics of true insurance what a person pays is based upon what the average expected cost of the benefits for that person will be where some factors are known about that person in advance of they buying insurance.  Under real insurance, if a person decided not to get a type of coverage, no other customer is effected by that decision, because there are no cross subsidies.

    When ACA is discussed and what people pay and what benefits they get is discussed, we should say that what a person pays and what benefits they get is not based upon the principles of insurance but of a tax and social benefit program.  So yes, people will see the many ways how ACA does not work like insurance.

    The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

    by nextstep on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 09:01:22 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  which means: single-payer is inevitable. (0+ / 0-)

      Under single-payer, everyone is in the pool and all the risks are averaged.  No tailored pools, no externalized costs.

      We got the future back. Uh-oh.

      by G2geek on Sun Jun 29, 2014 at 08:49:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site