If you are going to charge people for what they use then it isn't insurance any more. That is the really silly thing in the US - the "insurance" system is really just a mechanism for obfuscating how much things cost.
And if you want to start down the "lifestyle" road then why shouldn't people who have kids pay more (it is a choice too), or the people in LA (who are more likely to get skin cancer). And remember back in the 60s people didn't think cigarettes were that harmful. Soon we'll find out that fat is good, or bad, or was it salt? Do we get to retroactively charge and refund people as scientific evidence mounts up?
I guess I disagree to some extent. Insurance is designed to protect you from rare but catastrophic losses. It's not (originally, anyway) intended to step in and pay for reasonably forseeable expenses (routine health care, for example).
A contributing reason that health insurance is so expensive is that people have been using it as a way to only pay 20% or less of expenses they know they are going to have.
By the way, if you buy your own insurance, and you have kids, or want maternity coverage, you pay more.
> Insurance is designed to protect you from rare but catastrophic losses
That is 100% correct. My point was that the US system of health "insurance" is anything but insurance.
> ... that people have been using it as a way to only pay 20% or less of expenses ...
That isn't the case. Ultimately the premiums paid by you and/or your employer as part of your "benefits" (foregone salary) will cover most of your expenses, otherwise it isn't a viable business model as pretty much everything involves an insurance transaction. The actual procedures really don't cost that much. It is the extra layers of obfuscation, administration, multiple parties etc that totally confuse what is going on.
You should try buying your own insurance someday. It becomes obvious again how it really isn't insurance. I believe California health insurance now requires maternity coverage.
And if you want to start down the "lifestyle" road then why shouldn't people who have kids pay more (it is a choice too), or the people in LA (who are more likely to get skin cancer). And remember back in the 60s people didn't think cigarettes were that harmful. Soon we'll find out that fat is good, or bad, or was it salt? Do we get to retroactively charge and refund people as scientific evidence mounts up?