On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Patrick Sweeney<firefly.ga...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 1:47 PM, David Hobby<hob...@newpaltz.edu> wrote:
> But if I do fall ill, for the insurer to raise my rates rather than > provide the agreed-upon care seems like dirty pool. That is only true if you had an agreement with the insurance company that lasted longer than a month or year. All insurance has a time period either explicit or implicit. Most of today's individual health insurance plans have a short time period. The premiums are low for healthy people because the chances of a healthy person needing costly care over a short period is relatively low. If, on the other hand, one signed a health insurance contract for a lifetime policy (or even, say 10 years) with a fixed premium, then the premium would be higher than that for a short period policy, since the chances of needing prolonged, costly care are higher over a longer period. A long-term policy or a bundled health-insurance / health-status-insurance policy may be preferable for some people. But personally, I don't like to be locked into anything that I can avoid. I would prefer to have flexibility to change my health insurance providers...even every year if I want. Having separate health insurance and health status insurance would be a benefit for me, allowing me more choice. _______________________________________________ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
