Dotard, I had started going through the truncated posts but it became rather obvious early on that you've got it ass backwards as far as the method is concerned, It will be easier to clearly lay out how it would work and then you can raise criticisms.
Start with a base rate based on the average health liabilities of the population, give it the value 1.
Each person prior to getting health insurance gets a physical, depending on your long term outlook you are scored + or - some value relative to the base rate.
Taking positive overall actions towards health will result in a good score and lower rates.
Taking negative overall actions towards health will result in a poor score and higher rates.
For example, someone with who looks like they are going to be healthier than the average person gets a score of 0.7 and pays 70% of the base rate. Someone who smokes and drinks heavily scores a 1.3 and pays 130% of the base rate.
Every few years (or when you request it if you have solved the problems) you have a new physical and your rate is adjusted. People now have a financial motivation to remain healthy and people who do are not forced to shoulder the burden for people who do not.
As for risks:
Risks work like no-claims with vehicles, people who have a lot of accidents from situations that they put themselves in end up paying either a higher rate or their premiums go up. Someone who partakes in extremely risky activities is more likely to get injured and then need to make claims, someone who does not will not get as many injuries and will not pay higher premiums.
The state could subsidies the difference for people who get + scores as a result of an accident of birth, this means that people don't have to face extra costs for something they have zero control of and the insurance companies don't have to sign up people knowing they will make a loss on them.
As you can see, there is no need for reporting or spying or government watch or any of those other numerous straw men you raised earlier. You are judged on your performance relative to the average person and given rates relative to the base rate.
Start with a base rate based on the average health liabilities of the population, give it the value 1.
Each person prior to getting health insurance gets a physical, depending on your long term outlook you are scored + or - some value relative to the base rate.
Taking positive overall actions towards health will result in a good score and lower rates.
Taking negative overall actions towards health will result in a poor score and higher rates.
For example, someone with who looks like they are going to be healthier than the average person gets a score of 0.7 and pays 70% of the base rate. Someone who smokes and drinks heavily scores a 1.3 and pays 130% of the base rate.
Every few years (or when you request it if you have solved the problems) you have a new physical and your rate is adjusted. People now have a financial motivation to remain healthy and people who do are not forced to shoulder the burden for people who do not.
As for risks:
Risks work like no-claims with vehicles, people who have a lot of accidents from situations that they put themselves in end up paying either a higher rate or their premiums go up. Someone who partakes in extremely risky activities is more likely to get injured and then need to make claims, someone who does not will not get as many injuries and will not pay higher premiums.
The state could subsidies the difference for people who get + scores as a result of an accident of birth, this means that people don't have to face extra costs for something they have zero control of and the insurance companies don't have to sign up people knowing they will make a loss on them.
As you can see, there is no need for reporting or spying or government watch or any of those other numerous straw men you raised earlier. You are judged on your performance relative to the average person and given rates relative to the base rate.
.
