Of Homonyms and Health Insurance
HOMONYM: a word the same as another in sound and spelling but different in meaning Health insurance, car insurance, home insurance and life insurance are all "insurances" but are fundamentally different.
The confusion engendered by these homonyms lies at the heart of the misunderstandings plaguing our national debate on health care policy.
All insurance is a gamble, handicapping the risk of an accident or getting sick.
Car insurance and home insurance limit the financial impact of damages to our property and life insurance protects our families if we die early.
However with health insurance we are betting not only money, but the lives of health of both ourselves and our families.
When you, or your employer checks that little box, the decision locks you into a group of doctors and hospitals whose quality can determine your families future.
Good care can save your life, bad care can ruin it.
The ultimate irony is that most people haven't a clue about how to evaluate these choices, and they are most often made on financial considerations alone.
As I discussed on August 9, the economic value of the medical care you receive can become infinite when you get sick.
Understanding and rationally responding to this poorly appreciated reality is one goal of this blog.
The article cited today discusses the poor reception of high risk pools for people with preexisting conditions who are otherwise not insurable.
I predicted this in a prior post(Oct 27).
The underlying problem, now appreciated now by the mainstream press, is that the cost of these plans is just too high.
What the writers do not understand is that the individuals declining this expensive insurance realize they can still get care under medicaid or indigent services.
When insurance costs get too high, the costs revert to the government, either directly or indirectly.
As insurance rates rise for the rest of us, more people will choose this default "government" option, dooming the plans of Obamacare and other reformers.
My advocacy of a two tiered system (Oct 25 post) is in recognition of this inescapable reality.
A safety net for all, insuring basic care would guarantee that health insurance would be a gamble with money, not life.
http://www.
washingtonpost.
com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/27/AR2010122702343.
html
The confusion engendered by these homonyms lies at the heart of the misunderstandings plaguing our national debate on health care policy.
All insurance is a gamble, handicapping the risk of an accident or getting sick.
Car insurance and home insurance limit the financial impact of damages to our property and life insurance protects our families if we die early.
However with health insurance we are betting not only money, but the lives of health of both ourselves and our families.
When you, or your employer checks that little box, the decision locks you into a group of doctors and hospitals whose quality can determine your families future.
Good care can save your life, bad care can ruin it.
The ultimate irony is that most people haven't a clue about how to evaluate these choices, and they are most often made on financial considerations alone.
As I discussed on August 9, the economic value of the medical care you receive can become infinite when you get sick.
Understanding and rationally responding to this poorly appreciated reality is one goal of this blog.
The article cited today discusses the poor reception of high risk pools for people with preexisting conditions who are otherwise not insurable.
I predicted this in a prior post(Oct 27).
The underlying problem, now appreciated now by the mainstream press, is that the cost of these plans is just too high.
What the writers do not understand is that the individuals declining this expensive insurance realize they can still get care under medicaid or indigent services.
When insurance costs get too high, the costs revert to the government, either directly or indirectly.
As insurance rates rise for the rest of us, more people will choose this default "government" option, dooming the plans of Obamacare and other reformers.
My advocacy of a two tiered system (Oct 25 post) is in recognition of this inescapable reality.
A safety net for all, insuring basic care would guarantee that health insurance would be a gamble with money, not life.
http://www.
washingtonpost.
com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/27/AR2010122702343.
html
Source...