But the libertarian presumption is that free markets with full information work better for everyone involved. The insurers want information that will enable them to remove expensive-to-insure people from coverage where possible, or at least to put them in a much more expensive pool. While they want perfect information (to make insuring people as low-risk and profitable as possible,) clearly the parents of kids who may have pre-existing conditions do not want that information available. Wouldn't the libertarian approach be to allow insurers to take every possible measure to get that information out into the open, so that they can tier insurance appropriately?
The libertarian (or free market, more appropriately) approach would be to allow the request of every possible measure from the person buying the good (insurance, in this case) and then tier the insurance appropriately. There is a distinct difference between allowing an insurance company to ask you for your genetic information, and legislating that you must give your genetic information to the insurance company for the good of the people. The former gives the consumer a choice - or freedom, if you will - in the market, while the latter removes the freedom from the consumer in the name of collective benefit.
If you're asking if it's OK for the insurance company to demand that a person give up all information to them or be denied coverage, the answer would be a resounding "Yes!" The free market works both ways. Just as I'd expect you to be able to determine how much information you'd be willing to give up in return for savings, I'd expect an insurance company to decide how much information they require at the expense of loss of customers and revenue.
As soon as you start constraining either party in the transaction, the free market stumbles.
Doesn't that mean that people who are loath to share their information are probably "free-riding" on lower-risk populations?
As explained above, no it doesn't make somebody who refuses a free-loader. It is up to the insurance company to determine and manage their risk; they've been doing this for years and they're good at it.
Wouldn't that make the refusal of information (such as heart rates, etc.) a reasonable basis for refusing insurance, or at least charging a higher premium for it?
Yep, it does on both accounts. In a truly free market, you'll get providers who figure out how to capitalize on a niche market and make money while providing a service at a price consumers are willing to pay.
Slashdot Mirror
But the libertarian presumption is that free markets with full information work better for everyone involved. The insurers want information that will enable them to remove expensive-to-insure people from coverage where possible, or at least to put them in a much more expensive pool. While they want perfect information (to make insuring people as low-risk and profitable as possible,) clearly the parents of kids who may have pre-existing conditions do not want that information available. Wouldn't the libertarian approach be to allow insurers to take every possible measure to get that information out into the open, so that they can tier insurance appropriately?
The libertarian (or free market, more appropriately) approach would be to allow the request of every possible measure from the person buying the good (insurance, in this case) and then tier the insurance appropriately. There is a distinct difference between allowing an insurance company to ask you for your genetic information, and legislating that you must give your genetic information to the insurance company for the good of the people. The former gives the consumer a choice - or freedom, if you will - in the market, while the latter removes the freedom from the consumer in the name of collective benefit. If you're asking if it's OK for the insurance company to demand that a person give up all information to them or be denied coverage, the answer would be a resounding "Yes!" The free market works both ways. Just as I'd expect you to be able to determine how much information you'd be willing to give up in return for savings, I'd expect an insurance company to decide how much information they require at the expense of loss of customers and revenue. As soon as you start constraining either party in the transaction, the free market stumbles.
Doesn't that mean that people who are loath to share their information are probably "free-riding" on lower-risk populations?
As explained above, no it doesn't make somebody who refuses a free-loader. It is up to the insurance company to determine and manage their risk; they've been doing this for years and they're good at it.
Wouldn't that make the refusal of information (such as heart rates, etc.) a reasonable basis for refusing insurance, or at least charging a higher premium for it?
Yep, it does on both accounts. In a truly free market, you'll get providers who figure out how to capitalize on a niche market and make money while providing a service at a price consumers are willing to pay.