tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post9053526242723634301..comments2024-03-10T13:59:19.230-04:00Comments on xpostfactoid: A little less underinsurance on HealthCare.gov this yearAndrew Sprunghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17601269968798865106noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-70334606255540430742016-01-11T21:55:33.123-05:002016-01-11T21:55:33.123-05:00Thanks for all your great coverage of health care ...Thanks for all your great coverage of health care and insurance policy! What are some good sources to go to on the issue of underinsurance? It seems like it's the policy and political issue on the horizon, but I'm eager for a treatment of the subject that really deals with the assumptions, definition, and empirical reality behind the topic/concept. At a most basic level, is the spectre of underinsurance mostly about controlling health care provider costs--making "insurance" and "sufficient" actuarial value broadly affordable? Or is underinsurance about changing the preferences of consumers or at least making sure they are crystal clear on what type of insurance they are buying (something closer to catastrophic, not comprehensive/low deductible). I've long been dissatisfied with the way the term "insurance" is used in the matter of health care, because it's confusing, unlike almost all other insurance markets, in which people are generally trying to mitigate against exceptional events, not find something offering substantial coverage of everyday out of pocket costs. Layering on top of that the judgment of under vs over insurance seems to make things even less technocratically clear, since it seems to me what's really being hashed out here is an ideological political dispute over to what extent all health care expenses should be, at base, socialized. And I'm speaking here as a strongly left liberal. Have I confused myself here or is the terminology itself sometimes confusing?PFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00263515090451316188noreply@blogger.com