<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Thinking the Unthinkable</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/thinking-the-unthinkable/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/thinking-the-unthinkable/</link>
	<description>Insights on Health Care Reform &#124; NCPA</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Sep 2010 16:50:54 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Bart Ingles</title>
		<link>http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/thinking-the-unthinkable/comment-page-1/#comment-55481</link>
		<dc:creator>Bart Ingles</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:09:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/?p=9437#comment-55481</guid>
		<description>From the Health Affairs post:
&lt;blockquote&gt;And for the 1% to 4% of people with an expensive-to-treat, pre-existing condition, it is bad...&lt;/blockquote&gt;

I&#039;d really like to know where the &quot;1% to 4%&quot; figure came from.  Or at least what it means.  It doesn&#039;t sound plausible.  Nor does the 4x range suggest a very precise estimate.

Are you saying that you believe 99% of the population would be accepted for mainstream underwritten coverage?  Or that 96% could receive such coverage at something close to the lowest rates?

Guaranteed renewal is not much of an answer unless accompanied by the right to switch policies and insurance companies.  Otherwise anyone who needs to use the renewability provision is stuck in a monopolistic relationship with his or her insurance company.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>From the Health Affairs post:</p>
<blockquote><p>And for the 1% to 4% of people with an expensive-to-treat, pre-existing condition, it is bad&#8230;</p></blockquote>
<p>I&#8217;d really like to know where the &#8220;1% to 4%&#8221; figure came from.  Or at least what it means.  It doesn&#8217;t sound plausible.  Nor does the 4x range suggest a very precise estimate.</p>
<p>Are you saying that you believe 99% of the population would be accepted for mainstream underwritten coverage?  Or that 96% could receive such coverage at something close to the lowest rates?</p>
<p>Guaranteed renewal is not much of an answer unless accompanied by the right to switch policies and insurance companies.  Otherwise anyone who needs to use the renewability provision is stuck in a monopolistic relationship with his or her insurance company.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ken</title>
		<link>http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/thinking-the-unthinkable/comment-page-1/#comment-55425</link>
		<dc:creator>Ken</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2010 23:18:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/?p=9437#comment-55425</guid>
		<description>Excellent post. This should be xeroxed and sent to every one on the White House staff.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Excellent post. This should be xeroxed and sent to every one on the White House staff.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bruce</title>
		<link>http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/thinking-the-unthinkable/comment-page-1/#comment-55412</link>
		<dc:creator>Bruce</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:28:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/?p=9437#comment-55412</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s a real statement about the culture when hardly anybody other than one or two academics believes there should be a real market for risk.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s a real statement about the culture when hardly anybody other than one or two academics believes there should be a real market for risk.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Devon Herrick</title>
		<link>http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/thinking-the-unthinkable/comment-page-1/#comment-55398</link>
		<dc:creator>Devon Herrick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2010 19:47:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/?p=9437#comment-55398</guid>
		<description>The article “Tragedy of the Commons,” published in the journal Science in 1968, is a great metaphor for health care. Our tax dollars, future tax dollars from our grandchildren, premiums and forgone cash wages all pay for various common pools of health care. I have little incentive to curtail my consumption of medical care from the common pool since I bear little of the cost directly, despite degradation to the health care commons.  

Personal and portable health coverage – in the form of an HSA – helps to better align our incentives to be prudent consumers of medical care by assigning a form of property rights.  

Health care resources are finite in the medical commons.  There is nothing that ObamaCare can do by political fiat to alleviate that fact.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The article “Tragedy of the Commons,” published in the journal Science in 1968, is a great metaphor for health care. Our tax dollars, future tax dollars from our grandchildren, premiums and forgone cash wages all pay for various common pools of health care. I have little incentive to curtail my consumption of medical care from the common pool since I bear little of the cost directly, despite degradation to the health care commons.  </p>
<p>Personal and portable health coverage – in the form of an HSA – helps to better align our incentives to be prudent consumers of medical care by assigning a form of property rights.  </p>
<p>Health care resources are finite in the medical commons.  There is nothing that ObamaCare can do by political fiat to alleviate that fact.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Larry C.</title>
		<link>http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/thinking-the-unthinkable/comment-page-1/#comment-55391</link>
		<dc:creator>Larry C.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2010 19:29:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/?p=9437#comment-55391</guid>
		<description>Good post. And you are right. I can&#039;t think of anyone esle who defends a real market for risk. Certainly not the insurance companies.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good post. And you are right. I can&#8217;t think of anyone esle who defends a real market for risk. Certainly not the insurance companies.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul H.</title>
		<link>http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/thinking-the-unthinkable/comment-page-1/#comment-55382</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul H.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2010 18:27:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/?p=9437#comment-55382</guid>
		<description>Great article at Health Affairs. Much needed. Brilliantly reasoned.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great article at Health Affairs. Much needed. Brilliantly reasoned.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
