---
title: "健康問題國會創造而無法解決"
description: "It’s hard to solve a problem unless you first acknowledge it exists."
type: "news"
locale: "zh-HK"
url: "https://longbridge.com/zh-HK/news/33669802.md"
published_at: "2021-04-19T11:18:29.000Z"
---

# 健康問題國會創造而無法解決

> It’s hard to solve a problem unless you first acknowledge it exists.

![Congress created a problem for health insurance and cannot solve it.](https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://specials-images.forbesimg.com/imageserve/607d63bef0ca388bc3371762/960x0.jpg/query-Zml0PXNjYWxl?x-oss-process=image/auto-orient,1/interlace,1/resize,w_1440,h_1440/quality,q_95/format,jpg)

It’s hard to solve a problem unless you first acknowledge it exists. And it’s hard to acknowledge the existence of a problem if you created it yourself. That in a nutshell summarizes a unique feature of the American health care system. Since the end of World War II, the U.S. tax system has treated group insurance obtained through an employer differently from insurance purchased by individuals

For the past 70 years, premiums paid by an employer have been tax-free to the employee. From time to time, individual purchases have benefited from one tax break or another, but they have never been treated as generously as insurance obtained at work.

Even though Blue Cross group insurance might be identical to Blue Cross individual insurance, the tax law encourages us all to prefer the former to the latter. All we need is an accommodating employer to pay non-taxed premiums instead of additional taxable wages. Competition for labor ensures that virtually all employers of any size are more than willing to do that – even though most employers these days would rather not be involved in health care matters at all.

Here is the problem. Suppose an employee has been paying premiums (through an employer) to a health plan for 30 years. Then he gets too sick to work, has to quit his job and turns to the individual market for health insurance. Since his expected health care costs are quite high, an actuarially fair premium would also be quite high. In fact, it might be so high that the individual would be just as well off paying his own medical bills directly.

 This creates a fairness issue. This individual did the socially responsible thing. He paid premiums to the system every year – rather than forgo health insurance and indulge in additional personal consumption. Yet when illness struck, the fact that he had been paying into the system for 30 years was of no consequence because he was no longer on the employer’s plan. He would have been better off if he had never paid an insurance premium at all.

To many on the left, the solution is to force insurers in the individual market to accept such high-cost enrollees for the same premium as healthy enrollees. What difference does that make? All insurance involves pooling. In health care, those who stay healthy subsidize those who get sick. But here we have two different pools – one that collects 30 years of premiums from a healthy enrollee and one that is stuck with all the medical bills.

That’s not fair to the new insurer. But suppose you don’t care very much about fairness for insurers. There is another reason why you should care. Every health insurer must collect enough in premiums to pay its claims. So, it’s not really the new insurer that is penalized by this solution. It’s every buyer in the individual market – who must now pay higher premiums.

As it turns out, the individual market is quite small. It’s only about 6 percent of the population. So, if everyone who gets too sick to work migrates to the individual market and that market is required to insure everyone with no regard to health status, a small minority of the population will be saddled with the full burden of that migration.

The solution favored by the left doesn’t just impose an inequitable burden on a tiny slice of the public, it encourages the problem to get worse. Some older workers with chronic health problems remain at work only because of health insurance benefits. If they can retire early and get the same benefits in the individual market many will do so, putting an even larger burden on the small number of individual payers.

Remember, Congress (representing all of us) encourages people to join an employer’s group plan. Yet when we leave our employer, eventually we must also leave the health insurance group. The solution favored by many on the left is to take a social problem (created by Congress) and then make the folks in this tiny individual market pay the cost of solving it. Is that fair?

Yet that is what Obamacare does. It’s the main reason why premiums in the individual market doubled in short order after Obamacare was enacted, why deductibles are three times what they are in a typical employer plan and why narrow networks exclude the best doctors and the best hospitals.

So, what can be done? The most rational place to start is with root causes. If employers were able to buy individually owned insurance for their employees, the insurance would travel with the employee from job to job and in and out of the labor market. As long as employees aren’t forced to leave their insurance plan when they leave an employer, most of the problems of “pre-existing conditions” would vanish in a heartbeat.

So why aren’t we doing that? Some employers once did purchase such insurance for their employees. However, 1996 legislation made the legality of that practice unclear. Then, the Obama administration threatened employers with large fines if they engaged in it! The Obama fines, however, were imposed by executive order. Those orders were reversed by a Trump executive order. As of January 1, 2020, employer-purchased, individually owned insurance is now legal.

A second solution is post-retirement health benefits, which are still provided by some large employers. With this arrangement, employees stay in the employer’s health plan from the time of retirement until they are eligible for Medicare. Unfortunately, Obamacare encourages employers to drop these plans. Even if the retiree doesn’t get a subsidy from Obamacare, premiums for older enrollees are kept artificially low (offset by artificially high premiums for younger buyers). It may be cheaper for the employer to pay some or all of the Obamacare premium rather than provide the same coverage privately.

Good public policy would *encourage* employer-provided health care benefits after retirement rather than discourage them.

For employers who chose not to buy individually owned insurance and who chose not to offer post retirement care, there is a third solution. They should pay a small premium to a state risk pool, or reinsurance pool. The pool would have only one very limited purpose: to pay for any extraordinary costs that migrate from the group to the individual market.

Note that under all three solutions, the group market would no longer be dumping costs on the individual market. We would no longer be forcing 6 percent of the population to pay for a social problem created by government policy.

We would solve the problem of “pre-existing conditions” without causing premiums and deductibles to soar in the individual market.

## Related News & Research

| Title | Description | URL |
|-------|-------------|-----|
| “硬件防禦” 對沖 AI 焦慮，蘋果與納指相關性創 20 年新低 | AI 浪潮下，蘋果因未深度捲入軍備競賽，與納指相關性創 20 年新低，成為科技股動盪中的 “避風港”。在 AI 投資回報存疑及軟件業面臨顛覆的焦慮中，蘋果憑藉不易受衝擊的硬件生態逆勢突圍。儘管存在估值偏高及增長放緩壓力，其獨特的 “AI 中 | [Link](https://longbridge.com/zh-HK/news/276301841.md) |
| 為 AI 交易 “背書”！OpenAI 正敲定新一輪融資：以 8300 億美元估值募資高達 1000 億美元 | OpenAI 正以 8300 億美元估值推進新一輪融資，目標籌集 1000 億美元。軟銀擬領投 300 億美元，亞馬遜和英偉達可能各投 500 億及 300 億美元，微軟擬投數十億美元。本輪融資是 OpenAI 自去年秋季公司制改革以來的首 | [Link](https://longbridge.com/zh-HK/news/276298180.md) |
| PNC 金融服務集團公司收購了阿里巴巴集團控股有限公司 3,223 股股票 $BABA | PNC 金融服務集團在第三季度將其在阿里巴巴集團的持股比例增加了 7.1%，額外購買了 3,223 股，總持股量達到 48,759 股，價值 870 萬美元。其他投資者也調整了在阿里巴巴的持倉。該股票開盤價為 155.91 美元，過去一年的 | [Link](https://longbridge.com/zh-HK/news/276318339.md) |
| 缺電、缺水、缺人還搶地！美國數據中心建設狂潮面臨阻力 | 科技巨頭掀起的數據中心基建狂潮正遭遇嚴峻 “現實牆”：從電網容量、水資源瓶頸到技術工人短缺，執行風險急劇上升。亞馬遜等巨頭以驚人高價搶地，直接擠壓住宅開發，甚至斥資 7 億美元購入原定建房的地塊。這場資源競賽不僅推高了運營成本，更可能拖累  | [Link](https://longbridge.com/zh-HK/news/276290793.md) |
| Figma｜8-K：2025 財年 Q4 營收 3.04 億美元 |  | [Link](https://longbridge.com/zh-HK/news/276270628.md) |

---

> **免責聲明**：本文內容僅供參考，不構成任何投資建議。