General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Why must all health insurance plans include maternity coverage? [View all]TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)The issues come from pretending like it is one, at least circumstantially as we are forced to by trying to maintain a private system with individual responsibility rather than moving the funding system to the commons where it belongs.
Of course pooling risk itself doesn't really mesh with the wider system either. By definition, insurance means spreading the risk and rewards around and you can't ever really do this without subsidizing something you don't need in exchange for being subsidized for things the other people might not need.
There is also the locked in factor of not having any idea of what you may need. Never smoking does not mean you won't need coverage for lung cancer, your risk is reduced but it is certainly present just as most smokers do not die of a smoking related illness but their risk is higher. Your statistical model is meaningless on an individual basis.
There is no real way to do what you seem to want other than to do away with virtually all form of risk pooling and just say each person is responsible for their individual cost.
I suggest that the current model (before and after reform) foolishly attempts to live in both worlds and cannot help but to land in a silly place with abundant logic traps.
You seem to want to be subsidized but want to avoid subsidizing others otherwise why do you want insurance at all, pay your own tab.