You're right, my statement was too broad, but I submit that it is still correct for health insurance, when the goal is (I hope) to get affordable health care for everyone. The difference is that if vehicle insurance for your tank is unobtainable to prohibitively expensive, you can choose not to drive that tank. You have no choice in getting type 1 diabetes, or appendicitis, or an MRSA-infected bug bite.
> You're right, my statement was too broad, but I submit that it is still correct for health insurance ...
It's correct because the present system is set up that way. But this doesn't mean it must be that way, or that insurance requires a large pool of clients with the same policy and coverage. That's a coincidence.
From the standpoint of a large publicly-held corporation, many clients with identical policies, or many clients each with unique personal policies, work internally exactly the same way -- it's all about actuaries assessing risk and setting rates.
> I submit that it is still correct for health insurance, when the goal is (I hope) to get affordable health care for everyone.
Regardless of the business model, if health costs cannot be controlled, insurers will refuse to write the policies. This outcome doesn't depend on the assumptions behind the program -- whether there is a large program with many identically covered clients, or a program in which each client has a unique policy and the capital pool is the corporation's stockholders rather than the policy holders.
In both cases, some circumstances are unworkable. It remains to be seen whether health costs can be meaningfully regulated, in order to make a mandatory health insurance requirement politically acceptable. I sincerely hope so, but I don't control health care costs.
> It's correct because the present system is set up that way. But this doesn't mean it must be that way, or that insurance requires a large pool of clients with the same policy and coverage. That's a coincidence.
No, it is not.
> From the standpoint of a large publicly-held corporation, many clients with identical policies, or many clients each with unique personal policies, work internally exactly the same way -- it's all about actuaries assessing risk and setting rates.
The economy exists to serve people, not the other way round. The only acceptable system is one that allows people with chronic illnesses to get coverage like everyone else, and for an affordable price. The only effective way to prevent commercial insurers to refuse coverage to such people is to not allow them to issue personal policies.
>> It's correct because the present system is set up that way. But this doesn't mean it must be that way, or that insurance requires a large pool of clients with the same policy and coverage. That's a coincidence.
> No, it is not.
It is a coincidence, and many insurance companies write policies that apply to only one person. They can do this because a large pool of people, all with the same policy, is not essential for the system to work. Example:
A quote: "America Ferrera is the newest addition to the list of stars who have some of their body parts insured. Famous for her role as Betty Suarez in the top-rating ABC sitcom "Ugly Betty", Ferrera has had her smile insured for 10 million dollars by Lloyds of London."
One person, one smile, one client, one policy.
> The economy exists to serve people, not the other way round.
Please, to discuss that topic, start a new thread. It has precisely nothing to do with present topic, which is how insurance companies work.
