Its been argued that mandating insurance purchasing would increase the proportion of healthier persons in the insured pool. This would mitigate Insurers additional per capita expense for accepting and retaining clients that will generate excessive disbursements for medical expenses.
Healthy people cannot be offered insurance prices that will fully reflect their lesser demand for medical services to whatever extent we subsidize the greater expenses due to less healthy insured people.
Financially penalizing companies with 50 or more employees that do not subsidize their employees insurance will also be a less effective motivator if the penalty is much less than the per capita cost of purchasing insurance. For individual purchasers it is of even less of a motivator (and it may be deemed unconstitutional). Financial penalties being unpopular with voters and campaign contributors may always remain at ineffective levels.
The laws have been drafted with the hope of modifying existing financial behavior, (i.e. the prohibition of discrimination due to age and existing or probable future medical condition).
Historically we have experienced administrations that were less concerned with the median wage and living standards. During their durations of greater laissez faire or benevolently neglectful, our existing laws were less diligently enforced and/or interpreted to be of less advantageous to lower income earners. We have failed to install sufficient legal safeguards and to that extent theres likely to be future periods when those in power will be less populous and more regressive.
A medical insurer will profit more if those who are or if accepted would be unprofitable clients would choose to obtain insurance from a competing insurer (rather form their company). Medical insurers will always skirt the legal limits to keep the older and/or less healthy persons from joining or remaining within their pool of insured clients. During periods of less populous and more regressive government administrations, they can be expected to cross those legal lines with impunity.
Respectfully, Supposn
Healthy people cannot be offered insurance prices that will fully reflect their lesser demand for medical services to whatever extent we subsidize the greater expenses due to less healthy insured people.
Financially penalizing companies with 50 or more employees that do not subsidize their employees insurance will also be a less effective motivator if the penalty is much less than the per capita cost of purchasing insurance. For individual purchasers it is of even less of a motivator (and it may be deemed unconstitutional). Financial penalties being unpopular with voters and campaign contributors may always remain at ineffective levels.
The laws have been drafted with the hope of modifying existing financial behavior, (i.e. the prohibition of discrimination due to age and existing or probable future medical condition).
Historically we have experienced administrations that were less concerned with the median wage and living standards. During their durations of greater laissez faire or benevolently neglectful, our existing laws were less diligently enforced and/or interpreted to be of less advantageous to lower income earners. We have failed to install sufficient legal safeguards and to that extent theres likely to be future periods when those in power will be less populous and more regressive.
A medical insurer will profit more if those who are or if accepted would be unprofitable clients would choose to obtain insurance from a competing insurer (rather form their company). Medical insurers will always skirt the legal limits to keep the older and/or less healthy persons from joining or remaining within their pool of insured clients. During periods of less populous and more regressive government administrations, they can be expected to cross those legal lines with impunity.
Respectfully, Supposn
