Sean Hannity, the conservative news commentator, recently went on a rant about the lies told by the Administration to sell Obamacare. His one point was that we weren’t told that part of the strategy was that healthy people buying insurance would subsidize sick people.
Well duh😬‼️ Guess what, that’s the way all insurance works. Good risks subsidize bad risks which, by the way, is one reason everyone should carry health insurance … and other forms of insurance.
These types of nonsensical comments are demeaning to sincere conservatives. They add credibility to the negative claims about the radical right.
Hannity went on to prove his ignorance of the subject by stating the real solution was market based health insurance using health savings accounts and allowing insurers to sell coverage across state lines.
Simplistic “solutions” from the right are as useless as naive solutions from the left.
QUINNSCOMMENTARY 
Nope. Unlimited health spend subsidized by taxpayers is nothing like auto insurance … It is a wealth transfer. Don’t believe me, see Donald berwick comments about health reform as a form of wealth redistribution.
Auto insurance for comparison doesn’t work… There if you have a crap driving record, you get nonstandard coverage with liability benefit limitations (auto insurance speak/process for applying underwriting standards, pre existing conditions, etc.)
Not a valid comparison at all.
So, stop defending the liars by criticizing those who point out the shortcomings and misrepresentations that were a large part of PPACA.
LikeLike
Yikes, im not defending anyone, especially the designers of Obamacare. Of course the subsidy of premiums is a cost to taxpayers and one that will rise each year. This discussion started because I said high users of health care are always subsidized by the healthy. Even without the ACA that’s true. Before FASB was an issue and employers had one plan active younger employees subidized retirees in the same plan. That was the only point of the post. As far a auto goes you are right as i said they do pay more, but not enough to offset some cost to better drivers.
LikeLike
No. Insurance is about covering similar risks, where premiums are differentiated based in known variables that are predictive of claims experience. So, a smoker and a non smoker don’t have the same rate (unless you are in California). And, what you describe is not insurance against an unanticipated loss, but a transfer of wealth.
Bottom line, people were lied too and those who are paying more don’t like it.
Even some who pay less don’t like it.
LikeLike
Insurance is about pooling risk and as we know the use of health care is heavily concentrated in a relatively small percentage of people. If premiums were separate for that group they would truly be unaffordable. I would say the risk of using health care is similar in a pool of people. Now, when you initially remove any restrictions on pre-existing conditions that distorts things, but temporarily. People who have a good driving record and no accidents are subsidizing others who don’t even while there may be a difference the premium each pays.
LikeLike