One aspect of the current health insurance state is that it is expected to be more than insurance against risk of accident and disease--people largely expect it to cover routine and preventative care as well.

It is possible that in a true free market health insurance companies will provide these to the extent that such care reduces the downstream risk of preventable disease. Likewise, they may incentivize healthier lifestyle choices through reduced premiums/expanded coverage.

Nonetheless, the actual mechanics of market forces and competition resulting in a broad spectrum of insurance choices/costs is so distorted by government legislation and regulation that we get a completely ill-fitting market that few people are happy with.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

That's a very good point. Maybe some people would pay a little extra for a health and safety service package that covers all your needs, not just the unusual events.

Current insurance companies not incentivizing and helping their customers achieve a healthier and safer lifestyle is absolutely an indication of how far the system is from a free market and how much we need something better.

For example, in Finland we have a public health system funded by the taxpayer, which effectively subsidizes junk food, tobacco and other harmful products that would be less popular if you had to pay higher premiums.

Safety providers would make you wear a bitcoin cap — not as an invitation to robbers, but the opposite: "do not mess with one of us" 😄

I see that you left off Kossu from your list of harmful products 😆