No insurance company would offer a guaranteed health insurance rate for 10, 20, 30 years because there is no way to know what medical costs will be in the future and how legislation will change. The premiums would also be so ridiculously expensive that nobody would buy it. Combining more than one type of insurance into a single product is always a bad idea. If you want health insurance, buy health insurance. If you want life insurance, buy life insurance. If you want disability, buy that. If you want LTC, buy that. Combining them doesn't make them cheaper, it just makes the benefits for the "add-ons" suck because otherwise the price would be too high.
All these new companies would, no doubt, help the Unemployment picture. However, I don't see the Consumer's costs decreasing to make payroll... not to mention all the other duplication of costs.
I love how people see problems which "prevent" something from happening. The problems you present are both valid, but very very fixable.
The idea of locking in costs for 5-10-15 years is in best interest of consumer. Sure it might cost more money for a 10 year fixed premium, but because its linked to a higher life insurance payout (for example) it's in the insurance company's best interest to keep me alive. In current health insurance system it's better if I die from the standpoint of what I cost the insurance company.
It is OK for something to cost a lot of money. This might also help control costs by both consumer, providers and the insurance companies. Plus with plans like this, the need for Cobra goes away, so any funding for programs like that disappears, and the burden that puts on tax payers when economy contracts is non existent (next time).
As for combining policies, it is one cash pool fighting for my insurance dollars, and those policies have a conflict of interest. It is in health insurance best interest if I die fast, where is it in life insurance company's best interest if I die after policy expires.
In addition, I want insurance to protect me from going bankrupt. I have a finite amount of dollars to spend, so LTC, life insurance and health insurance are all doing the same thing- making sure my family does not go broke if something bad happens. It makes sense to combine them if the consumer wants the higher premiums and flexible payout options. There already riders on LIFE insurance policies which allow people to tap into them before they die if they become disabled. This is just an extension of that.
Imagine a world where HSAs went away, and if you paid $400/mo for the HDHP and another $400/mo for the HSA and another $100/mo for term policies on each spouse and another $100/mo for long term care.
There is no way all those policies will be needed (at same time), so why not put $1000/mo into one big pool, then allocate money as needed (7k covers annual worst case medical if its HDHP, the rest is building a cash value for life insurance or long term care). If I tap into health insurance enough, it might lower my LTC payout or require higher premiums to keep same benefit.
In general the difference between LTC and health insurance is what? In reality LTC IS health insurance (because LTC provides health care), and a person might need to carry both, yet the person with an LTC policy is duplicating coverage (IMO). Combining saves the insurance companies money and is what is best for consumer.