|
@Zerospinboson: I now understand one more spot where differences of common usage obscure communication. Typical American discourse names the problem you are talking about as "self selection" and reserves the terms "free rider" or "free riding" for those who obtain a particular benefit without paying for it at all. Both are real issues, but we use different names for them because the typical American attitude is that self selection is unfortunate (in that it complicates the problem of maintaining a viable insurance pool) but is not immoral or wrong. Thus, we consider self selection something to be dealt with via careful design of policy terms.
By comparison, free riding is something that is viewed as being wrong and immoral. And sometimes illegal as well. So you and Nate the great have been failing to communicate because (from an American point of view) you are accusing him of "doing something wrong" by using the term "free riding." But common American attitudes say that what he is doing isn't wrong or immoral. Instead, we worry about fixing the insurance so that he has incentives to sign up and pay rather than self selecting out of the pool. (My favorite scheme for this is the Medical Savings Account approach, which has been hamstrung by rules and limits imposed by congress, but that's a topic for another message.)
I think that all of us, Nate the great included, are aware of the issues of self selection. I can't read Nate's mind, but I suspect that he'll likely be part of that insurance pool long before the age-related higher costs you mention really kick in. The self selection problem is real, but manageable -- or so I think.
Xenophon
|