Does an insurance model work for healthcare?

[Polk]

I have made reference to this notion before, but never really got a response, so here it goes...

I would postulate health insurance is fundamentally different from all other forms of insurance. Car, homeowners, and term life insurance all have something in common. They protect against a risk. They protect against the possibility of a negative outcome. However, health insurance is not like this. It can't protect against the possibility of a negative outcome because everyone will fall ill at some point. Not everyone will crash their car, having their house burn down, or die within the next ten years. Everyone will fall ill at some point. Everyone will develop heart disease, cancer, diabetes, or hypertension. Disease and death are part of the human condition. This is why the insurance model for the provision of health care services is ultimately unstable.

 

[Toronado3800]

In some ways it is different. I may suffer a heart attack and die while removing invasive honeysuckle from my yard without costing my insurance comoany anything. Then again I may catch cancer and linger on for a decade of expensive treatment.

Just like auto insurance companies my health insurance company hires actuaries and others to figure out that risk and charge accordingly.

Different than automobiles which keep becoming safer this cheaper healthcare costs keep going up. Darn it, I want that new $100,000 sometimes it works chemo treatment which did not even exist in my grand dad's time for example.

Then we have the problem that unlike in Biblical times we dont lime seeing the sick and diseased on the street waiting dor the son of god to heal them. Hospitals in America more or less must treat the poor.

So I dunno.

 

[percysunshine]

I have made reference to this notion before, but never really got a response, so here it goes...

I would postulate health insurance is fundamentally different from all other forms of insurance. Car, homeowners, and term life insurance all have something in common. They protect against a risk. They protect against the possibility of a negative outcome. However, health insurance is not like this. It can't protect against the possibility of a negative outcome because everyone will fall ill at some point. Not everyone will crash their car, having their house burn down, or die within the next ten years. Everyone will fall ill at some point. Everyone will develop heart disease, cancer, diabetes, or hypertension. Disease and death are part of the human condition. This is why the insurance model for the provision of health care services is ultimately unstable.

Every house will eventually get old, decay, and collapse.

Every car will eventually get old, decay, and stop running.

The only question is when.

 

[auditor0007]

I have made reference to this notion before, but never really got a response, so here it goes...

I would postulate health insurance is fundamentally different from all other forms of insurance. Car, homeowners, and term life insurance all have something in common. They protect against a risk. They protect against the possibility of a negative outcome. However, health insurance is not like this. It can't protect against the possibility of a negative outcome because everyone will fall ill at some point. Not everyone will crash their car, having their house burn down, or die within the next ten years. Everyone will fall ill at some point. Everyone will develop heart disease, cancer, diabetes, or hypertension. Disease and death are part of the human condition. This is why the insurance model for the provision of health care services is ultimately unstable.

If auto insurance was like health insurance, policies would cover oil changes, new tires, and every single repair necessary over the lifetime of the vehicle. Same for home owners insurance; it would cover all remodeling costs, as well as paying all your utility bills. Health insurance is only insurance when something catastrophic happens. Otherwise it is just a means to pay your medical bills through a third party. Health insurance should not cover every single doctor's visit or once a year lab work. It should only cover catastrophic illness. The rest should be paid for out of pocket. The government could provide further funding for those who truly cannot afford even the most basic care.

 

[RDD_1210]

I have made reference to this notion before, but never really got a response, so here it goes...

I would postulate health insurance is fundamentally different from all other forms of insurance. Car, homeowners, and term life insurance all have something in common. They protect against a risk. They protect against the possibility of a negative outcome. However, health insurance is not like this. It can't protect against the possibility of a negative outcome because everyone will fall ill at some point. Not everyone will crash their car, having their house burn down, or die within the next ten years. Everyone will fall ill at some point. Everyone will develop heart disease, cancer, diabetes, or hypertension. Disease and death are part of the human condition. This is why the insurance model for the provision of health care services is ultimately unstable.

Every house will eventually get old, decay, and collapse.

Every car will eventually get old, decay, and stop running.

The only question is when.

You have car insurance that will pay for maintenance, oil changes, brake pads and engine work?

You have home owners insurance that will put in new carpet and paint your walls?

The only question is if you're dumb or being difficult just for the sake of it.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I have made reference to this notion before, but never really got a response, so here it goes...

I would postulate health insurance is fundamentally different from all other forms of insurance. Car, homeowners, and term life insurance all have something in common. They protect against a risk. They protect against the possibility of a negative outcome. However, health insurance is not like this. It can't protect against the possibility of a negative outcome because everyone will fall ill at some point. Not everyone will crash their car, having their house burn down, or die within the next ten years. Everyone will fall ill at some point. Everyone will develop heart disease, cancer, diabetes, or hypertension. Disease and death are part of the human condition. This is why the insurance model for the provision of health care services is ultimately unstable.

Every house will eventually get old, decay, and collapse.

Every car will eventually get old, decay, and stop running.

The only question is when.

You have car insurance that will pay for maintenance, oil changes, brake pads and engine work?

Don't confuse warranties with insurance

You have home owners insurance that will put in new carpet and paint your walls?

Only after they are damaged by a cause covered by your homeowners' policy

 

[RDD_1210]

Every house will eventually get old, decay, and collapse.

Every car will eventually get old, decay, and stop running.

The only question is when.

You have car insurance that will pay for maintenance, oil changes, brake pads and engine work?

Don't confuse warranties with insurance

You have home owners insurance that will put in new carpet and paint your walls?

Only after they are damaged by a cause covered by your homeowners' policy

I'm not confusing anything. We're talking about insurance. What he described has nothing to do with insurance. Like you said...warranties. Hence why he is either dumb or difficult.

 

[Toronado3800]

Good points I did not think of about the maintenance issues.

Feels like I have seen "emergency only" healthcare policies.....was it a Cobra deal about a decade back. Us young folk could use that.

Trouble is as WE get older WE usually need more and more maintenance type things. Think about them cholesterol drugs I have even been on and off, not to mention the decades of blood pressure or diabetes medication some of my elders are on. If health insurance did not cover it....well the positive would be maybe we would eat better. Then again Grandma would have died a pauper w/o insurance covering some pills. In the big sense that would be better, redistributing wealth from a stationary old lady to a company that is producing SOMETHING, even if it is only a pill.

hmmm....in my 20's I would have played the odds and only used catastrophic coverage. Now I can see the near future where I may need pills to raise my good cholesterol so I would swap my insurance to a better plan if both types were offered. Oh well.

 

[The Rabbi]

You have car insurance that will pay for maintenance, oil changes, brake pads and engine work?

Don't confuse warranties with insurance

You have home owners insurance that will put in new carpet and paint your walls?

Only after they are damaged by a cause covered by your homeowners' policy

I'm not confusing anything. We're talking about insurance. What he described has nothing to do with insurance. Like you said...warranties. Hence why he is either dumb or difficult.

I don't know about him, but you're both. A warranty is a form of insurance.

Back to topic: Health insurance is exactly like every other form of insurance. It is a wager based on the likelihood of any given occurrence and the cost that occurrence will involve. Plenty of people who never filed a health claim died in 9/11. Also plenty of policies never have a claim made on them before they are terminated by the insured.

 

[RDD_1210]

Don't confuse warranties with insurance



Only after they are damaged by a cause covered by your homeowners' policy

I'm not confusing anything. We're talking about insurance. What he described has nothing to do with insurance. Like you said...warranties. Hence why he is either dumb or difficult.

I don't know about him, but you're both. A warranty is a form of insurance.

Back to topic: Health insurance is exactly like every other form of insurance. It is a wager based on the likelihood of any given occurrence and the cost that occurrence will involve. Plenty of people who never filed a health claim died in 9/11. Also plenty of policies never have a claim made on them before they are terminated by the insured.

Car insurance is not a car warranty. Home insurance is not a home warranty.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I have made reference to this notion before, but never really got a response, so here it goes...

I would postulate health insurance is fundamentally different from all other forms of insurance. Car, homeowners, and term life insurance all have something in common. They protect against a risk. They protect against the possibility of a negative outcome. However, health insurance is not like this. It can't protect against the possibility of a negative outcome because everyone will fall ill at some point. Not everyone will crash their car, having their house burn down, or die within the next ten years. Everyone will fall ill at some point. Everyone will develop heart disease, cancer, diabetes, or hypertension. Disease and death are part of the human condition. This is why the insurance model for the provision of health care services is ultimately unstable.

Every house will eventually get old, decay, and collapse.

Every car will eventually get old, decay, and stop running.

The only question is when.

Houses do get old, well maintained houses last for centuries, those not maintained do not. Same with cars and people too. There is another comparison, if cars and homes are regualrly inspected - have routine physicals with regularity - problems can be discovered early and treatments applied. Repairing a roof or changing the oil can and does extend their 'life'; do the same with people and they to will avoid early decay or collapse.

In response to the OP it makes sense for the government to provide universal preventative healthcare to all; there are a number of ways to do this. Those who have their personal oil changed and roof repaired at appropriate intervals would likely be healthier, saving families and insurance companies $$$$$ in the long term.

That this is true is obvious, for the only retort to such a suggestion is an emotional one. The hysterics and the propaganda purveyors are now free to call such an idea socialism.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I have made reference to this notion before, but never really got a response, so here it goes...

I would postulate health insurance is fundamentally different from all other forms of insurance. Car, homeowners, and term life insurance all have something in common. They protect against a risk. They protect against the possibility of a negative outcome. However, health insurance is not like this. It can't protect against the possibility of a negative outcome because everyone will fall ill at some point. Not everyone will crash their car, having their house burn down, or die within the next ten years. Everyone will fall ill at some point. Everyone will develop heart disease, cancer, diabetes, or hypertension. Disease and death are part of the human condition. This is why the insurance model for the provision of health care services is ultimately unstable.

We don't have an insurance model. We have health plans. That's what is unsustainable.

 

[The Rabbi]

I have made reference to this notion before, but never really got a response, so here it goes...

I would postulate health insurance is fundamentally different from all other forms of insurance. Car, homeowners, and term life insurance all have something in common. They protect against a risk. They protect against the possibility of a negative outcome. However, health insurance is not like this. It can't protect against the possibility of a negative outcome because everyone will fall ill at some point. Not everyone will crash their car, having their house burn down, or die within the next ten years. Everyone will fall ill at some point. Everyone will develop heart disease, cancer, diabetes, or hypertension. Disease and death are part of the human condition. This is why the insurance model for the provision of health care services is ultimately unstable.

Every house will eventually get old, decay, and collapse.

Every car will eventually get old, decay, and stop running.

The only question is when.

Houses do get old, well maintained houses last for centuries, those not maintained do not. Same with cars and people too. There is another comparison, if cars and homes are regualrly inspected - have routine physicals with regularity - problems can be discovered early and treatments applied. Repairing a roof or changing the oil can and does extend their 'life'; do the same with people and they to will avoid early decay or collapse.

In response to the OP it makes sense for the government to provide universal preventative healthcare to all; there are a number of ways to do this. Those who have their personal oil changed and roof repaired at appropriate intervals would likely be healthier, saving families and insurance companies $$$$$ in the long term.

That this is true is obvious, for the only retort to such a suggestion is an emotional one. The hysterics and the propaganda purveyors are now free to call such an idea socialism.

Do you have any proof that a universal preventative health plan would actually save money?
No, I didn't think so either.

 

[Sheldon]

Car, homeowners, and term life insurance all have something in common. They protect against a risk. They protect against the possibility of a negative outcome. However, health insurance is not like this. It can't protect against the possibility of a negative outcome because everyone will fall ill at some point.

This is why the insurance model for the provision of health care services is ultimately unstable.

That logic seems off. I don't really agree with how you've compared it to the other forms of insurance. Health insurance has the same thing in common as auto, home, life; it's also supposed to be a cushion against the financial costs of shit hitting the fan, ie protecting against a risk. It just doesn't do its job as well as they do.

So I agree with your conclusion. The problem with health insurance is that the shit/fan part happens a lot. Couple that with the growing costs of actually cleaning the shit off the fan blades, and it's easy to see the basis for premium growth out-pacing income growth.

 

[Toronado3800]

Do you have any proof that a universal preventative health plan would actually save money?
No, I didn't think so either.

In the short term preventative maintenance saves tons of money. If I'm in better shape I will not require the diabetes or heart medications as soon.

Now long term who knows. I just might die of a more expensive to treat cancer.

What kind of proof would you be looking for? Cost of lost of productivity + cost of treating preventable illnesses vs cost of treating things which kill otherwise healthy folks?

 

[The Rabbi]

Do you have any proof that a universal preventative health plan would actually save money?
No, I didn't think so either.

In the short term preventative maintenance saves tons of money. If I'm in better shape I will not require the diabetes or heart medications as soon.

Now long term who knows. I just might die of a more expensive to treat cancer.

What kind of proof would you be looking for? Cost of lost of productivity + cost of treating preventable illnesses vs cost of treating things which kill otherwise healthy folks?

I am looking for any study that confirms that universal preventative care decreases costs in the long run.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I have made reference to this notion before, but never really got a response, so here it goes...

I would postulate health insurance is fundamentally different from all other forms of insurance. Car, homeowners, and term life insurance all have something in common. They protect against a risk. They protect against the possibility of a negative outcome. However, health insurance is not like this. It can't protect against the possibility of a negative outcome because everyone will fall ill at some point. Not everyone will crash their car, having their house burn down, or die within the next ten years. Everyone will fall ill at some point. Everyone will develop heart disease, cancer, diabetes, or hypertension. Disease and death are part of the human condition. This is why the insurance model for the provision of health care services is ultimately unstable.

Insurance works by assessing general risk across a statistical pool. Believe it or not, health insurance works the exact same way. Not everyone gets sick, even if you think they do. Some people go through their whole lives with no real need for health care. Others die before they get sick, either through accident or a previously undiagnosed condition.

Health insurance works by defraying the cost over a pool. The problem does not lie with insurance, it lies with taking the consumer choices out of hands of the customer and putting them in the hands of a 3rd party.

 

[Toronado3800]

That might be difficult to come up with before we are fifty years into preventative care. Otherwise I am concerned we will just be taking one Democrat's or one Republican's point of view.

Let's apply common sense to the situation.

Keep us going to the doctor/gym with preventative care and this year we cost healthcare more money.

Next year I feel better and stronger than I would have and am more productive.

For the next decades until I am seventy I am less likely to have a heart attack, kidney or whatever problem which will cost healthcare TONS of money. Oh, and I am also a more productive American if I am healthy.

After I'm seventy, I dunno. There is a chance something simple like a heart attack won't kill me if I am healthy. I might catch a terrible cancer (yup, catch it you sure can), might go senile and require a decade of treatment, or lord forbid live till I am 100 and need two decades of intensive treatment.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I have made reference to this notion before, but never really got a response, so here it goes...

I would postulate health insurance is fundamentally different from all other forms of insurance. Car, homeowners, and term life insurance all have something in common. They protect against a risk. They protect against the possibility of a negative outcome. However, health insurance is not like this. It can't protect against the possibility of a negative outcome because everyone will fall ill at some point. Not everyone will crash their car, having their house burn down, or die within the next ten years. Everyone will fall ill at some point. Everyone will develop heart disease, cancer, diabetes, or hypertension. Disease and death are part of the human condition. This is why the insurance model for the provision of health care services is ultimately unstable.

If auto insurance was like health insurance, policies would cover oil changes, new tires, and every single repair necessary over the lifetime of the vehicle. Same for home owners insurance; it would cover all remodeling costs, as well as paying all your utility bills. Health insurance is only insurance when something catastrophic happens. Otherwise it is just a means to pay your medical bills through a third party. Health insurance should not cover every single doctor's visit or once a year lab work. It should only cover catastrophic illness. The rest should be paid for out of pocket. The government could provide further funding for those who truly cannot afford even the most basic care.

That is what drives up health care costs more than anything.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Do you have any proof that a universal preventative health plan would actually save money?
No, I didn't think so either.

In the short term preventative maintenance saves tons of money. If I'm in better shape I will not require the diabetes or heart medications as soon.

Now long term who knows. I just might die of a more expensive to treat cancer.

What kind of proof would you be looking for? Cost of lost of productivity + cost of treating preventable illnesses vs cost of treating things which kill otherwise healthy folks?

Rabbi's not too bright and very conservative; he rejects anything which does not fit into the ultra right wing model. I suspect he doesn't understand what preventative medicine is so a cost-benefit analysis never occured to him, nor would he accept a cost-benefit analysis not anointed by Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin or a Fox News talking head.