14
   

The Republican's Source For News

 
 
Baldimo
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 3 Sep, 2013 09:47 am
@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?
parados
 
  5  
Reply Tue 3 Sep, 2013 10:32 am
@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.
Baldimo
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 3 Sep, 2013 12:59 pm
@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.
IRFRANK
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Sep, 2013 02:25 pm
@McGentrix,
Yes, if their cost of living goes up.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Sep, 2013 04:07 pm
@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?
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Sep, 2013 04:09 pm
@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
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Sep, 2013 04:12 pm
@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
 
Baldimo
 
  0  
Reply Tue 3 Sep, 2013 04:25 pm
@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.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Sep, 2013 04:34 pm
@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
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Sep, 2013 04:35 pm
@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
 
parados
 
  3  
Reply Tue 3 Sep, 2013 05:22 pm
@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
 
parados
 
  3  
Reply Tue 3 Sep, 2013 05:44 pm
@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
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/03/2020 at 02:57:09