Quote:But the trouble is, if you allow a "low cost option" that doesn't cover certain conditions, then the policy that does cover certain conditions is bought only by the people with that condition, which makes it so expensive for an insurance company to offer it, that they have to price it to cover their cost, and that makes health insurance unaffordable for the people who actually need it.


In the example of diabetes, if you offer a low cost plan that doesn't cover diabetes, then the only people who will buy the high cost plan will be the people who need it, the diabetics. And the insurance companies would have to price the high cost plan so high it would be unaffordable, or else they would lose money and go out of business.


The whole concept of insurance is shared risk. I know libertarians think shared risk = socialism, but that's what insurance is- shared risk. If healthy people don't buy health insurance, then insurance companies can not afford to offer a plan that anyone could afford to buy, because the policies would only be held by sick people.

So to sum it up if a product can not be offered to the market because there is not enough demand government should just force individuals to buy the product so cost remains low for those that do want it.


If the goal is to keep cost low eliminating the middle party would be more beneficial than forcing participation.


The idea of insurance is shared risk but it's up to the insurance companies to create a product that balances risk and cost effectively enough that consumers view it as beneficial to purchase.


The only people that need life insurance are dead people, so why do so many living people buy life insurance? Because the cost is low enough people view the benefit of protection from loss as affordable. Once you remove the incentive for insurance to control cost in order to attract consumers you've eliminated the only vehicle to control cost.


We took a bad situation and made it worse with the ACA

---