Boston.com is reporting today on the efforts of Massachusetts to bring down the cost of its mandated health insurance. The companies that sell health insurance in the state are beginning to sell policies that prohibit the insured person from using the more expensive (and popular) hospitals such as Massachusetts General and Brigham and Women's for their care. It saves money for employers buying insurance for their workers, and it saves money for the individual buying insurance, but is this really a good idea?
It would be nice to lower health insurance costs, but when the law required that insurance companies had to insure everyone who applied for insurance, costs were bound to go up. The state interference in the healthcare insurance market has totally skewed the actuary tables. Because people can buy insurance for a period when they know they will have major medical expenses and then drop the insurance, the previous actuary numbers no longer apply. The insurance companies are trying to stay in business with a reasonable profit margin (yes, they are entitled to make a profit), and the state (which does not necessarily understand how health insurance works) is trying to control them.
It's time Massachusetts realized that its universal healthcare plan was not really a good idea. Affordable insurance coverage for everyone could be achieved by easier means. Let's begin with tort reform, high risk insurance pools, commerce across state lines, and tax deductions to buy health insurance. Those things might actually work.
Leave a comment