Asymmetrical Information: a different idea for health insurance

Health care

04 Jul 2008 04:02 pm

Kemp shocks me by pushing a project near and dear to my heart–switching America’s government provided insurance to catastrophic income insurance, rather than the current screwed up system. My proposal is that the government should pick up the tab after you’ve expended 15% of your annual income.

Now, that’s an interesting idea, and it combines a couple of things I’ve advocated before: insurance as being against catastrophe (rather than paying for routine care) and a requirement people spend some of their own money on their own health.

I wonder what that looks like, budgetarily?

Sorry that looks funny: I tried publishing from Word 2007.  Sticks in a LOT of extra HTML it doesn’t need to.


  1. Sounds like the best plan I have seen. Not just “we’ll pay everything” which I dislike. Not “it’s your right to have health care” which I dislike. But “we’ll help you out and keep it from bankrupting you”. So if the person/patient doesn’t file income tax or is good at hiding assets how will this be regulated?

  2. I would think that, just like the IRS “refund”, if you don’t file you’re not eligible.

    There will always be system cheats. Their punishment will be either from hell or the IRS, and either would be okay with me.

  3. Hmmm. Sounds a lot like an HDHP, only without the government. part.