Catastrophic insurance is exactly how insurance is meant to work. If you want to save for medical procedures in your old age, you can get a savers account.
The whole point of insurance is that a big financial hit (caused by your house burning down, cancer, whatever) causes a non-linear amount of suffering. A few dollars (paid by 99 lucky healthy people) isn't noticeable, but the one guy who can now afford his emergency operation is a thousand times happier. Total cost = 100$750. Total happiness = 99 (-meh) + 1 * (OMG I'll see my grandchildren!!!).
I don't like the whole "forced savings" thing. If you get to 80, and can't afford an operation that you probably don't need, and didn't save for it, and your family won't bail you out ... everyone is mortal.
I guess you could say that people don't have the discipline to save. Fine. Tax the young, and give cash to old people. But don't treat health insurance as a pension - why should young people subsidize old people who want expensive (but most likely useless) operations, but not subsidize old people who can live with the fact that they are mortal and would rather have few bucks to spend at the Bingo club?
What do you do if you get a serious condition in your 20s? Not particularly common, but I certainly wouldn't feel good if I wasn't covered for it.
Also, most people literally cannot afford to save up hundreds of thousands of dollars over their lifetime. Nonetheless, this is what they might end up having to pay in medical expenses.
I can't see any hint of a practical or sensible option in what you're saying.
If you get a serious condition in your 20s, that's what you should be covered by with cat- insurance.
If everyone needs "hundreds of thousands of dollars over their lifetime" they are getting too much healthcare. That's my other point - we sink all the money into more-or-less useless operations on old people who are about to kick the bucket.
Healthcare is best directed towards younger people, where it can make a difference. Old people often get stuff that's likely to be net negative (side effects, complications, etc) because the hospitals want to make money off the procedures.
I guess I'm not understanding what this "catastrophic insurance" is supposed to be. If it covers any medical condition that you might get in your 20s -- without charging enormous co-pays -- then it seems an awful lot like regular insurance. I can't see any reason why someone in their 20s would need less coverage than someone in their 70s. You may be less likely to get sick, but if you do get sick, you'll want that coverage even more than someone in their 70s (since you have more to lose).
>If everyone needs "hundreds of thousands of dollars over their lifetime" they are getting too much healthcare.
Eh? I never suggested that everyone needed to spend that amount. But some individuals will, and not just for "useless operations." There are plenty of cancer survivors who are in that degree of debt.
>Healthcare is best directed towards younger people, where it can make a difference.
I hate how the terms of the debate in America are so selfish. In no other country is there any perception that the old and the young are somehow conflicting interest groups in healthcare. The discussion of this issue is a symptom of the bitterness, cynicism, and (frankly) utter insanity brought about by decades of buying and selling healthcare as a commodity. I just can't engage on this point; I'm baffled by it.
The whole point of insurance is that a big financial hit (caused by your house burning down, cancer, whatever) causes a non-linear amount of suffering. A few dollars (paid by 99 lucky healthy people) isn't noticeable, but the one guy who can now afford his emergency operation is a thousand times happier. Total cost = 100$750. Total happiness = 99 (-meh) + 1 * (OMG I'll see my grandchildren!!!).
I don't like the whole "forced savings" thing. If you get to 80, and can't afford an operation that you probably don't need, and didn't save for it, and your family won't bail you out ... everyone is mortal.
I guess you could say that people don't have the discipline to save. Fine. Tax the young, and give cash to old people. But don't treat health insurance as a pension - why should young people subsidize old people who want expensive (but most likely useless) operations, but not subsidize old people who can live with the fact that they are mortal and would rather have few bucks to spend at the Bingo club?