|
|
|
|
|
|
by vel0city
798 days ago
|
|
|
> Yes, they'd still need to spend (using my made-up numbers) $160 instead of $80 on care/benefits, but the profit pool still increases -- a perverse incentive to raise premiums. So they're still not just increasing profit by jacking up premiums, they have to actually find another $80 of benefits to pay out. If subscribers don't have those costs, they can't just increase premiums. If they raise prices to $200 but only end up with $90 of benefits to spend they have to cut a refund. |
|
|
While that's true, such a situation isn't very common[0].
Only a small percentage of people receive rebates, and those that do don't necessarily get much in the way of a rebate
It's anecdata, but my premiums have nearly doubled in the past four years, with no additions to coverage (in fact, my insurer informed me that while my premiums were going up by 15% in 2024, I would receive less coverage than in 2023. The only reason I maintained my coverage with them is because I have an ongoing issue and I'd prefer not to be forced to change providers until the issue has been fully addressed.
So yes, just raising premiums doesn't guarantee more profit, but it certainly enables it and, at least in my case (which, again is just anecdata) means higher premiums and less coverage. Something doesn't seem right here.
And that something is how we've implemented healthcare in the US.
[0] https://www.healthinsurance.org/obamacare/billions-in-aca-re...