Comment by baggy_trough
Comment by baggy_trough 3 months ago
[flagged]
Comment by baggy_trough 3 months ago
[flagged]
I'm skeptical of that claim. Of course, they'd prefer not to pay more.
You can do your own research on how much disposable monthly income the typical low-to-middle-class American has, and how much good (i.e. significantly better than employer-provided) insurance costs.
Sure, but not really. Special circumstances (including moving) any time of year, ~or~ open enrollment once each year.
Yes you can't change from a cheap high-deductible plan to a platinum gold super plan the second you feel an expensive emergency coming on, that is an important note. But it wasn't the context here. For chronic disease management you do benefit from completely freedom to find your way to a plan you like eventually.
It is still a horribly overpriced system though.
Are you aware of any health insurance plans in the US which don't have an open enrollment period? I think this is standard across the industry as a check against adverse selection, but most of the information quickly available is ACA-focused, where it's definitely a feature; since open enrollment is extremely beneficial to insurers, I wouldn't imagine them talking up alternatives.
It's true that there is a list of qualifying life events that let you change or acquire insurance outside of open enrollment, but none of them look like "because I don't like my insurer" to me.
Even if open enrollment periods are universal, the statement I reacted to is still false (the "and" should be an "or").
Having to wait between zero to 12 months to change insurance plans is a barrier, but a small one compared to the inability to change plans at all, as in a nationalized health scheme.
A lot more. More than the majority of people are able to.