How can one predict how much health insurance one will need?
It's an exercise in linear programming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_programming), when you get right down to it. You have a risk exposure, X; you have a supply of finances, Y. You want to reduce your risk exposure down beneath a certain threshold, and you want to preserve your finances. Etc., etc.
The tools of basic economics do not cease applying to health care just because the stakes are high, in the same way that bread does not become free just because people need to eat.
Inexpensive health insurance is largely purchased by people who can't afford better, and is of low quality.
News flash: Toyota Camrys are largely purchased by people who can't afford BMWs, and are of lower quality. Never mind — even that statement is false. It isn't that a Camry buyer can't afford a BMW. It's that the opportunity cost for the BMW is much higher than the Camry. For the price of a BMW, they can get a Camry and a down payment on a house — and maybe for them having a house is a higher priority than having a BMW. Likewise, inexpensive health insurance is not "largely purchased by people who can't afford better." It's largely purchased by people who make rational decisions about opportunity costs, and are electing to make the most bang for their buck.
For fraudulent policies that lie, misstate or deceive about the actual coverage provided, my opinion is that criminal trials and stiff sentences are appropriate. But inexpensive policies that play by the rules serve very real needs in the marketplace, and only a fool would try to drive them out.
Do you have sources on that other than US anti-government activists?
I am about as far from an anti-government activist as can be imagined. Many people who are outraged over this bill are fervent believers in the American ideal. I am not opposed to the American government, but I have some very real concerns about the direction in which it is going — and to paint me, and those who feel likewise, as "anti-government" is an appalling libel.
no subject
It's an exercise in linear programming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_programming), when you get right down to it. You have a risk exposure, X; you have a supply of finances, Y. You want to reduce your risk exposure down beneath a certain threshold, and you want to preserve your finances. Etc., etc.
The tools of basic economics do not cease applying to health care just because the stakes are high, in the same way that bread does not become free just because people need to eat.
News flash: Toyota Camrys are largely purchased by people who can't afford BMWs, and are of lower quality. Never mind — even that statement is false. It isn't that a Camry buyer can't afford a BMW. It's that the opportunity cost for the BMW is much higher than the Camry. For the price of a BMW, they can get a Camry and a down payment on a house — and maybe for them having a house is a higher priority than having a BMW. Likewise, inexpensive health insurance is not "largely purchased by people who can't afford better." It's largely purchased by people who make rational decisions about opportunity costs, and are electing to make the most bang for their buck.
For fraudulent policies that lie, misstate or deceive about the actual coverage provided, my opinion is that criminal trials and stiff sentences are appropriate. But inexpensive policies that play by the rules serve very real needs in the marketplace, and only a fool would try to drive them out.
I am about as far from an anti-government activist as can be imagined. Many people who are outraged over this bill are fervent believers in the American ideal. I am not opposed to the American government, but I have some very real concerns about the direction in which it is going — and to paint me, and those who feel likewise, as "anti-government" is an appalling libel.