‘Social solidarity’ stopped actuaries devising policies to suit low-income earners
Why would a government seek to stop consenting adults from entering private contracts with insurers to minimise the risk of huge medical bills, asks Jasson Urbach
The final demarcation regulations drawing the line between medical insurance products and medical schemes was gazetted by the Treasury in December. When the first draft regulations were published for public comment four years ago, they were met with staunch opposition as the proposals would have all but banned health insurance products. It was a classic case of "door-in-the-face technique". By diverting attention away from the real cause of the problem, the public would be lulled into agreeing to "more reasonable" future proposals. The regulations gazetted in December still ban primary healthcare insurance policies but allow "gap cover" or "hospital cash plans", subject to the application of maximum limits and strict underwriting and marketing conditions. These watered-down regulations still do not address the dubious principles driving the perceived need for change. The fundamental problem yet to be openly identified, let alone resolved, is the principle of so-called "social solida...
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Subscribe now to unlock this article.
Support BusinessLIVE’s award-winning journalism for R129 per month (digital access only).
There’s never been a more important time to support independent journalism in SA. Our subscription packages now offer an ad-free experience for readers.
Cancel anytime.
Questions? Email helpdesk@businesslive.co.za or call 0860 52 52 00. Got a subscription voucher? Redeem it now.