@Avram in MD
Reb Avram-
Yes, I really would support that idea. I currently get health insurance through my employer and my employer is selfiinsured. Being able to get up every morning and report to work makes people a cheaper risk to insure. I don’t know the exact percentage for my employer but I’d say the vast majority of the employees here have a college education (or are working on it) which shows some amount of responsibility and again- a cheaper pool to insure. Additionally- given the background and criminal checks that financial institutions have to perform on prospective employees the irresponsible behavior gets filtered down even more. I can’t think of a way to get a less risky pool of insureds than to hypothetically remove every single irresponsible individual as @ubiquitin hypothesized. Obviously in a situation like that there would be no smokers for the pharmaceutical industry to medicate and by default everyone would be doing, at minimum, the amount of exercise necessary to stay healthy. It would also be unrealistic to ensure everyone does the correct amount of exercise…
Having a single payer system would have the government collect a premium from every person and pay the provider for the claims incurred. This would put me in a much more expensive risk pool and my expenses would shoot up- probably in the same range as by the ACA.
I agreed with the idea (as hypothetical as it may be) to show @ubiquitin that I’m not against the government being the single payer per se- I just don’t think they would know what they’re doing or that it’s possible for them to take over without my expenses going up significantly again.