Submit your websites, blogs, videos to http://www.zillionsb.com and get 1000s of visitors everyday for free. It also helps your websites/blogs gain valuable backlinks.

Let the other bloggers cast their votes to push your posts up for a greater visibility. Enjoy free huge traffic to your sites.

Thanks

Sara

http://www.zillionsb.com

I need some clarification on that.

As I define it, risk involves uncertainty: the event may occur in the future, it may not. I could go my whole life and never get cancer, but the entire time insure myself against the risk that it does happen. The routine expenses of pregnancy, I suppose, can be considered risk to the extend the woman doesn't know for sure she will get pregnant, or when it will happen. But it is a reach to put that in the same category as illnesses that the insured is unlikely to contract over their lifetime.

Second, a lot of people are in higher brackets.

Third, your rebuttal doesn't even make sense. What you should be comparing is the cost of group insurance + tax break, to the cost of individual insurance. And even then, you have to be aware of the downward pressure in everyone's prices as more people choose the latter.

And why would you think otherwise? Most economic mistakes come from not accounting for all of the costs. In this case, you are not counting the cost of a one-size fits all program. My driving history, health history, life style–the things I'm willing to do without, the things I really want covered–make me UNIQUE. By entering a marketplace full of a wide variety of options, it is not unexpected that I would find something better, even cheaper, than what a group can offer.

How do you figure? According to McKinsey and Co survey, the average cost for group health insurance for a family of four is about $13,000 annually. The majority of households have a marginal tax rate of 15%. So the tax subsidy for employer-based health insurance is less than $2,000 for a majority of families.

If state insurance mandates were removed, group health insurance would be much lower than $13,000. The tax subsidy would be much less than $2,000 annually.

The risk you're hedging against is a large expenditure to treat a health outcome.

As John Dewey pointed out, a woman may know that she wants to become pregnant, but she cannot know when that will happen, if that will happen and how much it will cost if it should happen. She can smooth the cost of a potential pregnancy by either saving a lot of money before she becomes pregnant to prepare for a potentially large expense (self insuring) or an insurance company can translate that risk and the likely cost associated with it into series of premiums.

Nobody should be mandated to pay for pregnancy insurance if they don't want it. I'm just saying that it's perfectly reasonable for an insurance company to price and offer such insurance to those who wish to buy it.

Here's the thing: it is highly unlikely that all, say, 500 employees at some firm would agree to coverage provided by the same insurer and with essentially the same coverage, and that they could not maintain if they left the company, were it not for some outside enticement, such as a near-50% government subsidy.

I don't believe I suggested any such thing.

<The solution is to eliminate government interference. The free market will then determine what features health insurance should have.>

I agree 100% I think employer-provided insurance would gradually go the way of the dinosaur, because of the issue of consumers' preferences and needs varying considerably, and because of the need for portability.

I agree that government mandates and restrictions on interstate purchase have made health insurance much more costly than it should be. Favorable government tax treatment of employer provided insurance has increased demand for health expenditure insurance. But the solution is not to eliminate health insurance. The solution is to eliminate government interference. The free market will then determine what features health insurance should have. IMO, employer-based health insurance would remain the norm. but who can know?