The Republican's Source For News

@BigEgo,

If my health care costs more then I should pay more. Plain and simple. If a woman never has any issues then I don't see any reason why she couldn't have a lesser cost for her insurance than say her sister who has all sorts of issues. The more you use the more it costs.

You sure do make a big jump in thought. I think people who consume more in health costs should have to pay more to I don't think anyone should have health insurance just because a black man is in office? You really are as stupid as you sound. Just like the other assholes on this site, if I don't agree with your view point then I must be some jerk face racist who wants everyone but the white race to die.

Would you be surprised to learn that I'm married to black woman?

3 Replies

@Baldimo,

Quote:

If my health care costs more then I should pay more. Plain and simple.

Why do we even have insurance then? Let everyone pay for their own health care seems to be your argument.

1 Reply

@parados,

Parados if you are a worse driver then I am, should you pay more for your car insurance? Of course you should, that doesn't mean you have to pay for the repairs to your car, it just means that since you have a worse driving record and use the insurance more than I, you are going to pay more.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

Yes, if their cost of living goes up.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

The reason group insurance premiums cost less than private insurance premiums is because the risk is spread.

That means the bigger the group, the better the spread and the lower the overall premium.

You generally can't determine in advance who is going to have higher healthcare costs. There are some factors that might/maybe/possibly effect the risks covered but actuaries don't always get it right - that's why they're famous for the actuarial twitch.

Once you start breaking down the groups into smaller segments, you start to lose the benefit of group/shared insurance coverage.

What are you going to do if a man gets a diagnosis of breast cancer? tell him he's not covered because he's in the wrong group?

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

If my health care costs more then I should pay more. Plain and simple. If a woman never has any issues then I don't see any reason why she couldn't have a lesser cost for her insurance than say her sister who has all sorts of issues. The more you use the more it costs.

The biggest problem with your plain and simple is that it isn't. Premiums are paid in advance, not after treatment needs are determined.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

We already do this for car insurance. You have more accidents you pay more, you have more tickets you pay more. It is called insurance and if you cost more to insure than you end up paying more.

You pay more after it's determined you are a higher risk - not before you are assessed. There are some variants in some jurisdictions but many no longer allow auto insurers to charge more for young men just because they're men.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

Who said break it down by group. It isn't that tough to do a risk assessment on someone's health. Smokers already pay more for insurance than non-smokers so what would the difference be for someone who has cancer or diabetes or heart disease that runs in the family. Me I have all 3 that run in my family so I would be paying higher premiums than my co-worker Jerry who has none of those things that run in the family.

3 Replies

@Baldimo,

If you're in a large enough group, you don't get charged a higher premium for risks like that.

That's how public insurance works in a number of countries. It is a per-person premium, not family history-based premium (that turns out to be almost useless for most).

Large alumni groups are the same - the premium is per person, not by medical history/lifestyle.

I'm involved with some plans with well over 100,000 members. The premium is unrelated to medical history.

Small groups and individuals, the actuaries will take a crack at assessing risk. It's a hopeless game.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

It isn't that tough to do a risk assessment on someone's health.

It is very difficult to do a meaningful actuarial assessment on an individual risk. That's another reason individual/small-group plan premiums cost more.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

Parados if you are a worse driver then I am, should you pay more for your car insurance? Of course you should, that doesn't mean you have to pay for the repairs to your car, it just means that since you have a worse driving record and use the insurance more than I, you are going to pay more.

A worse driver is only discovered after the insurance has been sold and rates go up later. You are arguing that I should be assumed a worse driver with no evidence to support it. That would be like arguing that women are worse drivers than men so they should pay higher insurance rates and we can ignore their personal driving.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

Who said break it down by group. It isn't that tough to do a risk assessment on someone's health. Smokers already pay more for insurance than non-smokers so what would the difference be for someone who has cancer or diabetes or heart disease that runs in the family. Me I have all 3 that run in my family so I would be paying higher premiums than my co-worker Jerry who has none of those things that run in the family.

That leads back to if someone uses no health care under your scheme they should pay nothing for insurance since they consume none.

0 Replies

The Republican's Source For News

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know