Hacker News Reader

Comment by saxonww | Hacker News Reader

Are you aware of any health insurance plans in the US which don't have an open enrollment period? I think this is standard across the industry as a check against adverse selection, but most of the information quickly available is ACA-focused, where it's definitely a feature; since open enrollment is extremely beneficial to insurers, I wouldn't imagine them talking up alternatives.

It's true that there is a list of qualifying life events that let you change or acquire insurance outside of open enrollment, but none of them look like "because I don't like my insurer" to me.

View on HN

There is private (non ACA) insurance you can purchase without an open enrollment period in the states. However they get around it by being able to deny you coverage for preexisting conditions.

Even if open enrollment periods are universal, the statement I reacted to is still false (the "and" should be an "or").

Having to wait between zero to 12 months to change insurance plans is a barrier, but a small one compared to the inability to change plans at all, as in a nationalized health scheme.

It’s a false choice, as individual plans are always worse by their nature.

You make it sound as though you're forced to take nationalized health care.

"Almost all European countries have healthcare available for all citizens. '''Most European countries have systems of competing private health insurance companies''', along with government regulation and subsidies for citizens who cannot afford health insurance premiums."

They are probably more expensive than the government plans, but same is true in reverse in the US. One helps the poor more, and makes sure those who can afford still have an option, the other makes those with good jobs, and get paid well having good care, and costing the poor who can least afford it, far more in terms of their capacity to pay. You're just wrong on this, and trying to be cute with boolean logic is ... "cute".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com