Comments on: Limited Benefit Insurance: It’s Becoming Respectable

By: Kartik

Kartik — Sat, 24 Sep 2011 00:51:27 +0000

Well, it’s well intentioned but at the same time, insurance should cover you ONLY for a catastrophe. Not for primary care – that should be paid through and HSA

By: Bart Ingles

Bart Ingles — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 18:22:06 +0000

Ken, if you have limited-benefit insurance and no assets, and then suffer a catastrophic illness, who ends up paying for for your care?

By: Ken

Ken — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 15:28:10 +0000

Bart, if I have no assets to protect how am I screwing the system by not buying insurance to protect assets I don’t have???

What am I missing?

By: Bart Ingles

Bart Ingles — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 22:48:53 +0000

Catastrophic coverage offers a way to protect assets. If you don’t own anything, then I suppose it’s reasonable to try to screw the system.

The B.C. discount card sounds intriguing. A way to take advantage of negotiated rates regardless of health status?

By: Joe S.

Joe S. — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 22:06:42 +0000

Remember the results of the RAND study done a few years ago and referred to at this blog on several occasions. Basically, once people get into the system (see a doctor) they get essentially the same care, regardless of the type of insurance they have and regardless of whether they have insurance at all.

So the most important kind of insurance is the type that gives people lots of primary care options — giving them the greatest chance to initially enter the system.

It is not clear that catastrophic insurance is important at all.

By: Larry C.

Larry C. — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 22:02:04 +0000

AHIP (the health insurance trade group) has just released their plan for health care reform and it has a mandate for catastrophic insurance — precisely the opposite of the approach taken by the limited benefits policies.