|
|
|
|
|
by eleusive
4067 days ago
|
|
For one, it reduces the effects of adverse selection[1]. The idea is that everyone reaps economic benefits through such programs, as an average company will have a pool of workers, some who are "healthy" although others may have medical problems. Compare this to a individuals wanting health insurance - if they're young and healthy they're less likely to want to pay much for insurance, which leaves older and sicker people to pay higher and higher premiums. Of course this is really only an issue with privatized insurance and is a great argument for having a single-payer solution. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_selection |
|
That's NOT what adverse selection is. That's simply actuarial pricing - everyone pays for their own risk.
Adverse selection is caused by information disadvantage - the party buying insurance has information the insurance company does not have or is unable to incorporate into the price. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_selection
The main cause for adverse selection in health insurance markets are regulations against pricing in various forms of pre-existing conditions.