Insurance companies have been able to successfully insure people against such events while still making a profit and remaining financially sound. No doubt, this is due in part to industry regulation, but mainly due to an OPT health insurance company’s reputation in the market place. Potential customers do not want to enter into a contract with an insurance company that is on the brink of insolvency and may be unable to meet their obligations, so insurance companies strive to achieve and maintain a solid standing with respect to their financial position.
However, insurance companies are able to “pick and choose” who they insure (in addition to being able to charge a higher price for those deemed to be a higher risk). This basically ensures their ability to turn a profit with minimal risk. But, this also results in some people being uninsurable and they are excluded from the opportunity of pooling resources to protect against catastrophic events (that’s basically what insurance is).
I realize this is unfair to those who are uninsurable, but on the other hand I realize that it is also unfair for insurance companies to be expected to insure someone who has not paid into insurance for most of their life and suddenly decides to get it once they have been diagnosed with a terminal illness or someone who possesses the factors that are associated with an untimely catastrophe.
I do not believe that the opportunity to participate in insurance is a God-given right (like freedom of speech, etc.), rather I feel that insurance should be a product just like any other where consumers have the choice to buy or not. However, there are not very many products out there that exclude segments of the population from buying because it would be unprofitable for the producer of the product. What would happen if an all-you-can-eat buffet refused to allow any person with a body mass index greater than 40 to enter? I bet there would be civil rights groups protesting about discrimination, yet that’s basically what is happening everyday in the insurance industry.
So how should the dilemma be remedied so that it is fair for all?
For sake of limiting the scope of this manuscript, the issue of those who cannot afford insurance is not included… that can be another article. Regardless of how we solve the described dilemma, this issue will still exist and will need to be remedied.
In the case of health insurance, one solution proposed is to have a government-run program to insure the segment of society that private sector insurers refuse to insure due to the unprofitable situation such insurance would pose. While this may be a noble idea, it will be very costly to the government (which uses taxpayer money to fund) since those in this category will be the highest risk of the societal pool. Not only that, it also requires the overhead of a bureaucracy to run such a program which typically is much more expensive than the overhead of a private sector equivalent. Granted, this does remedy the problem of offering insurance to those who are uninsurable, as well as keep insurance companies profitable (and should ultimately reduce the cost of their product); this comes with a very high price tag for taxpayers. In the end, any reduction in the cost of insurance would likely be tremendously outweighed by an increase in taxes.