Government’s the medical payer of last resort

[Supposn]

I suppose that all commercial medical insurance policies are “capped”. If that’s the case than EVERY American, (even those medically insured), are actually dependent upon government as their insurer of last resort.

The government already pays foe every individual’s extraordinary medical expenses because insurance companies can not and will not pay for them. If we are to prohibit terminating sick people’s insurance or targeting them with increased cost, isn't government insurance for extremely high deductible annual medical expenses feasible (and desirable)?

This would not be government competing with insurance companies. Insurance companies do not now accept such risks. It would not increase government spending because our government is now paying for individual’s extraordinary medical expenses.

Just as participating banks pay for their FDIC insurance, insurance companies who choose to participate can pay for this very high deductible re-insurance of their clients. It wouldn’t be mandatory, but given a choice of insurance that provides this extremely high deductible protection at very moderate additional cost, why would insurance purchasers choose any other company?

(The price of re-insurance should be moderate because when insurance is discontinued our government now pays all additional medical expenses).

Wouldn’t this somewhat decrease medical insurance prices? Wouldn’t this mitigate insurance companies’ motivation to terminate medical insurance for some people? This would not solve our medical insurance problems, but it wouldn’t improve what we’re now doing?

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Hanno]

Sounds like something EJ Dionne would say - give 'em more power so they can screw up efficiently.

 

[Hanno]

Here we are:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/09/21/warping_the_debate_about_government_98378.html

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Supposn Said: Wouldn’t this somewhat decrease medical insurance prices? Wouldn’t this mitigate insurance companies’ motivation to terminate medical insurance for some people? This would not solve our medical insurance problems, but it wouldn’t improve what we’re now doing?

TOTAL CLAIRITY...OMG...that's exactly the point about the 'Health Care REFORM' is about!!! Making those overly inflated, self engorged companies play FAIR!

And for those select few who are so misaligned with "how are those poor enormous Health Care Providers going to survive"...just imagine the entire USA covered by some form of medical insurance...WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK IS GOING TO BENEFIT FROM ALL OF THOSE POLICIES THAT ARE GOING TO GET WRITTEN UP

This is a marketing GOLD MINE and it's just waiting to be plundered by the Health Care Industry as fast as they can get their collective PLANS in order!!!

 

[Hanno]

Who? The most petulant, mewling, well connected, and systemically risky of them will become symbionts of the government, they'll be burdened with neither the possibility of achievement nor that of failure.

 

[top gun]

I suppose that all commercial medical insurance policies are “capped”. If that’s the case than EVERY American, (even those medically insured), are actually dependent upon government as their insurer of last resort.

The government already pays foe every individual’s extraordinary medical expenses because insurance companies can not and will not pay for them. If we are to prohibit terminating sick people’s insurance or targeting them with increased cost, isn't government insurance for extremely high deductible annual medical expenses feasible (and desirable)?

This would not be government competing with insurance companies. Insurance companies do not now accept such risks. It would not increase government spending because our government is now paying for individual’s extraordinary medical expenses.

Just as participating banks pay for their FDIC insurance, insurance companies who choose to participate can pay for this very high deductible re-insurance of their clients. It wouldn’t be mandatory, but given a choice of insurance that provides this extremely high deductible protection at very moderate additional cost, why would insurance purchasers choose any other company?

(The price of re-insurance should be moderate because when insurance is discontinued our government now pays all additional medical expenses).

Wouldn’t this somewhat decrease medical insurance prices? Wouldn’t this mitigate insurance companies’ motivation to terminate medical insurance for some people? This would not solve our medical insurance problems, but it wouldn’t improve what we’re now doing?

Respectfully, Supposn

If I'm reading you correctly you are saying like this... What if government just covered things like catastrophic care. Is that correct?

If it is then yes that would be one way to go. It would lower the outlay risk to insurance companies hence adding to the possibility of lower premiums (unless the insurance companies were left unregulated on this as then they would likely just take the higher profits).

The problem with this though (even presuming the regulation) is that we want to encourage EARLY TREATMENT & PREVENTIVE MEDICINE. So Health Insurance Reform that goes from a doctors visit all the way through catastrophic is the goal we are trying to achieve.

Good question though.

Here's a good example of how the current system is totally broken...