re: Facts on Health Care

quote:

---

Those are both cancer so it's not really an issue. Just strikes different parts of the body (and breast cancer isn't exclusive to women).

The problem with the essential health benefits is they drive up the overall costs, and that makes insurance a bad deal for people who just need protection against risk. Let people choose an old plan without that coverage and it's a good deal again, and most of those policyholders will pay into the system.

---

The other side to this, and people need to decide if they are ok with it, and where a lot of the debate whittles down to on this, is that by not setting a minimum standard, you incentivize the healthiest and highest risk-takers to choose lower coverage options. Which leaves the more comprehensive coverage increasingly and increasingly more expensive, and often out of reach for more and more people that need it. Who then get forced into less adequate coverage because it's all they can afford. Couple that with no mandates or penalties and you go back to the barebones individual market we had. Though slightly more expensive(though for many probably cheaper then the mandated situation) if you still eliminate pre-existing conditions because people will just wait til they need it to join more comprehensive care.

Ultimately, the lowest common denominator becomes the main standard and the old mandated baseline now becomes a luxury fewer people can afford.

It becomes a trade-off game. Do you eliminate mandates/minimum coverages and create cheaper premiums but make the equivalent of the previous mandated baseline more expensive? Or do you create a baseline benefit mandate and make premiums more expensive then when un-mandated, but will keep that benefit baseline cheaper then had you sought that level of coverage without the mandate?There are winners and losers in either scenario.