HlthConsult
17p13 comments posted · 0 followers · following 0
14 years ago @ KeithHennessey.com - Why you can’t do... · 0 replies · +1 points
14 years ago @ KeithHennessey.com - Why you can’t do... · 0 replies · +1 points
I like the standard 12/12 pre-existing condition provision too. It would certainly stop those with pre-existing conditions from dropping insurance (since they would incur the exclusion again) but I don't think the problem has been to get those with conditions to subscribe. The intent is to get those without conditions to subscribe.
I do think that allowing high deductible policies (versus the low-deductible comprehensive coverage in the federal bills) will generate more subscribers as well.
14 years ago @ KeithHennessey.com - The House-passed bill&... · 4 replies · +1 points
I am frankly a little confused/surprised by this analysis. Two points:
1) I would expect a net loss in employer sponsored insurance, since many employers would see the penalty for not paying insurance as cheaper than providing it.
2) The authors point out that the "18M" people who willingly pay the tax in place of buying insurance are those "with relatively low health care expenses for whom the individual or family insurance premium would be significantly in excess of the penalty". But as people move out of employer-sponsored insurance, more folks will experience their true insurance bill, unsibsidized by the government. I think among those folks that earn too much to get significant governmental subsidy, they will figure out (over a relatively short window) that it is FAR cheaper to remain uninsured that to buy an unsubsidized policy. Do recall that about 20% of the folks in the US consume about 80-85% of the care costs each year. This means that about 80% of subscribers would do better each year by being insured. They could buy insurance when they need it (as they do in MA) and drop it immediately thereafter.
It is reasonable to expect that over a short window, many folks will figure out the implications of #2. And I would expect that the thousands of financial advisers in the country (and a long list of pundits) will be quick to figure this out, and to publicize the rationale.
Isn't there a credible argument that the net uninsured will actually rise (and significantly) and that the remaining uninsured will see premiums rise (significantly) as a result?
TSB
14 years ago @ KeithHennessey.com - Higher premiums and lo... · 0 replies · +1 points
14 years ago @ KeithHennessey.com - Numbers matter · 0 replies · +1 points
I am a little confused. The Feldstein plan did nothing to the payer market at all. IN THE PLAN, The Feds just provide vouchers to cover a portion of private insurance. Why did you think this is single payer?
TSB
14 years ago @ KeithHennessey.com - Numbers matter · 2 replies · +1 points
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti..." target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti...
He suggests that the feds should
1) issue a voucher for the actuarial cost of insurance for costs greater than 15% of income. Ergo, the voucher phases out to zero as income rises. The voucher could be used for any policy from any private insurer.
2) Issue a "credit card" from the govt for folks that cannot cover the potential cost of care within the 15%-of-income amount (in case the low income incur costs that exceed their ability to pay)
3) pay for all of this by eliminating the employer deduction for insurance
This is a remarkably clean reform plan, and would drive many toward cost-containing higher-deductible policies. Thoughts anyone?
14 years ago @ KeithHennessey.com - Numbers matter · 0 replies · +1 points
14 years ago @ KeithHennessey.com - Wall Street Journal op-ed · 0 replies · +1 points
I also agree that the guaranteed-issue framework establishes some bad incentives, such as the house-on-fire example above. However, I think that if insurers were allowed to charge 2 years premiums for individuals who were previously uninsured, it would not only drive folks toward buying insurance, but it would drive folks toward higher-deducitble policies (since both the premium and then penalty would be lower).
Now all we have to do is get federal legislation that does not outlaw high-deductible policies (as most of the bills in Congress do) and does not skew community rating to damage the young folks.
14 years ago @ KeithHennessey.com - Incorrect conventional... · 0 replies · +1 points
14 years ago @ KeithHennessey.com - Incorrect conventional... · 0 replies · +1 points