lets-retire
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2004
- Messages
- 1,798
Not quite sure if I follow you. It seems to me that an insurance company will payout more medical losses (in $) for a low-deductible policy than a high one? So even if the 10% number is the same for both, it will lead to more $ in revenues (and hence earnings) for the low-deductible policy, since the 10% is applied to a larger $-volume of medical losses.
For example, if I find a riskless arbitrage opportunity in the market, I am better off to leverage my investment as much as I can since it will increase my $-return, even though the percentage return on the underlying notional amount is still the same.
They might make more money, but then again they might not. That is the point 10% would be the max they could earn. I could also be less. If the maximum return is the same no matter how they structure their policies, there is little benefit for offering a better policy where they would take more risk for no better return, and possibly lower returns. You are correct in that there would be higher medical loss, but that 10% is the maximum they can earn. I think what would happen, if they did offer the current type policies, is they would be very expensive, triggering the cadillac plan tax.
Your point also brings up another issue. Insurance companies would have no incentive to keep medical expenses down, and in fact would receive an incentive to maximize their medical expenses.