NetworkedBlogs
Why Stop There?
When "ObamaCare" passed and was signed into law (over much protestation), one of the things its advocates claimed was that as the "benefits" started to roll out, people would like them and reward the Democrats for pushing the program into law. One such immediate benefit was that individuals could remain on their parents' insurance until the age of 26. Since young adults comprise a large sector of the uninsured, the idea was to get more young adults with coverage, and to do so at a better price — add-ons to a family insurance plan are typically less expensive than individual policies.
But why stop there? Why stop at 26? To fully answer the question in the context in which it is asked, some background is required.
The three fundamental aspects of a free market-based health insurance reform are individual deductibility, ability to buy across state lines, and the ability to form voluntary "group plans". Deductibility would give individuals and families the same tax advantages to buying insurance themselves as currently is given to employers, thus broadening the pool of consumers for whose business insurers would be competing. Buying across state lines would broaden the pool of providers, as well as enable consumers to bypass state government-imposed mandatory minimum coverages (e.g., forcing a single male to purchase mammogram or maternity coverage). Group plans would enable voluntary associations of individuals to purchase coverage — groups like the American Diabetes Association could pool together diabetics and negotiate better insurance terms (helping take care of "pre-existing condition" exclusions) while groups like the American Institute of Architects or even the NAACP could likewise pool members together to increase their bargaining power.
The combination of these three market-based reforms would greatly expand the competitive market: lowering costs, increasing choices, and likely spurring innovations as insurance companies worked to attract consumers — just as occurs in the market for lap top computers, cell phones, and nearly every other product ... every product except health insurance. Best of all, it wouldn't require scores of new intrusive government regulations, tax increases, mandates, or prohibitions — just the magic of the free market.
Which brings us back to the question: why stop at age 26?
Under the system outlined above, no matter what the age, family members could group together and shop for a family insurance plan — no matter what the age, no matter what the relationship. If they wanted to do so, Mom, Dad, sons, daughters, aunts, uncles, and cousins could shop around for the plan that best suited their needs, then pool their tax credits together to purchase it — even if they were scattered across the country.
The free market can simply provide more choices at better prices for consumers than government edict, and no politician or bureaucrat can know better than an individual or family what kind of health coverage is best. We don't need more taxes, bureaucrats, prohibitions, mandates, or complexity to truly reform health care. We just need an open, competitive market and more individual choice.
But why stop there? Why stop at 26? To fully answer the question in the context in which it is asked, some background is required.
The three fundamental aspects of a free market-based health insurance reform are individual deductibility, ability to buy across state lines, and the ability to form voluntary "group plans". Deductibility would give individuals and families the same tax advantages to buying insurance themselves as currently is given to employers, thus broadening the pool of consumers for whose business insurers would be competing. Buying across state lines would broaden the pool of providers, as well as enable consumers to bypass state government-imposed mandatory minimum coverages (e.g., forcing a single male to purchase mammogram or maternity coverage). Group plans would enable voluntary associations of individuals to purchase coverage — groups like the American Diabetes Association could pool together diabetics and negotiate better insurance terms (helping take care of "pre-existing condition" exclusions) while groups like the American Institute of Architects or even the NAACP could likewise pool members together to increase their bargaining power.
The combination of these three market-based reforms would greatly expand the competitive market: lowering costs, increasing choices, and likely spurring innovations as insurance companies worked to attract consumers — just as occurs in the market for lap top computers, cell phones, and nearly every other product ... every product except health insurance. Best of all, it wouldn't require scores of new intrusive government regulations, tax increases, mandates, or prohibitions — just the magic of the free market.
Which brings us back to the question: why stop at age 26?
Under the system outlined above, no matter what the age, family members could group together and shop for a family insurance plan — no matter what the age, no matter what the relationship. If they wanted to do so, Mom, Dad, sons, daughters, aunts, uncles, and cousins could shop around for the plan that best suited their needs, then pool their tax credits together to purchase it — even if they were scattered across the country.
The free market can simply provide more choices at better prices for consumers than government edict, and no politician or bureaucrat can know better than an individual or family what kind of health coverage is best. We don't need more taxes, bureaucrats, prohibitions, mandates, or complexity to truly reform health care. We just need an open, competitive market and more individual choice.
Comments