L
Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
Thankfully for those of us with chronic health issues (including my wife who has never smoked and doesn't drink but developed breast cancer at an early age), there are choices without a high deductible. I'm all for choices rather than dictating to everyone how things "should be". We don't go to Dr.'s for colds either.
Less choice, less freedom. But clearly not everyone believes in freedom of individual choice. There are always those who believe everyone should be free to ONLY choose the same choice they make.
Wow...
So let me get this straight. Your wife is reliant on meds perhaps due to treatments or to keep a cancer at bay? Your costs to the pool of insureds will be statistically higher, and you want to pay the same premium, regardless of type of plan, as all other insureds. Sounds like another play on redistribution of wealth to me.
Insurance should pool risk, not recurring cost, IMO. But here's where your attack on me backfires - obviously a breast cancer finding and the appropriate treatment to get to the best possible outcome is a catastrophic event, and should be covered.
Insurance should also be for catastrophic conditions, not chronic/recurrent ones, which was my point in saying how it should be. We need to segregate redistribution of wealth for the betterment of people who may need it, because of chronic issues, handicaps, whatever, from pooled risk (of catastrophy or at least relatively major events/expenses) which is the point of insurance.
With an HDHP, one still pools risk, but one also pays the first few thousand out of pocket in return for a lower premium. If I pay $200/mo for an HDHP, or $500/mo for a zero deductible plan (made up numbers), and the HDHP pays 90% after $3k out of pocket, one can come out ahead with the HDHP, even if they incur a lot of costs, because of the lower premiums. It looks worse because as opposed to no deductible. You have to pay "out of pocket" a good chunk of change before coinsurance kicks in. But you pay a lot less premium. It covers catastrophy well, which again, is the point of pooling risk via insurance.
Do you expect your car insurance to pay for oil changes? Homeowner's insurance to pay for gutter cleaning? Malpractice insurance to pay for your continuing education classes and professional development? If no, then why would we expect pooled risk (insurance) to pay for routine needs, even if they are unfortunate?
YOU are paying more in to get more out, with your plan. Great. No place did I say that people should be starved of choice.
But INSURANCE should be for catastrophe.