Originally posted by II HAL II
Originally posted by RKWWWW
The thing that would get to me is if I paid all this insurance but hardly ever used the medical services. Mind you that's the same with any type of
insurance I guess.
Man, you're from England - you should understand insurance because it mostly started there! It started with the shipping companies figuring out a
way to recover something when ships are lost at sea. Lloyds of London?
In it's purest form, it's risk allocation - who is going to pay for a known, potential loss - me? or the insurer. If the ship returns, the insurer
keeps the premium and makes a tidy profit. If the ship is lost, the insurer pays for the cost of the ship and cargo, and loses money. But it's all
a calculation of potential risk (e.g., 10% of ships to India were lost, so what is our potential loss and what should our premium be?)
Personally, If I never spend more than $3000 / year in medical expenses, then I lose for having paid all that money to the insurer in premiums because
they've agreed to pay 80% of any medical expense I incur over $3,000.
But if I spend $25,000 in five days,(which would be catastrophic financially to me) the insurer loses that bet because I only paid $190 to them for
them to assume that risk that month. I will pay the first $3,000, and they will pay 80% of $22,000.
Trust me, the insurance companies have hundreds of actuaries over hundreds of years doing these calculations - they know better than anyone (like
Single payer (like you have in Britain) OTOH is not risk allocation, it's resource allocation. We have $10,000,00 (or Pounds) to spend every year on
health care for everybody, now, how do we allocate it?
To me, that's a scarier proposition - having some bureaucrat determining what health care expenses will be paid for, and which won't.