- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Rush on pre-existing ...it's not insurance, it's welfare
Posted on 2/27/20 at 9:21 am to TBoy
Posted on 2/27/20 at 9:21 am to TBoy
I'll use your wording:
In the case of a PEC, there is no risk to evaluate. The condition is a guarantee, by definition. So, requiring coverage of PECs is a windfall to those with PECs.
quote:
The "actuarial tables" estimate group risk
In the case of a PEC, there is no risk to evaluate. The condition is a guarantee, by definition. So, requiring coverage of PECs is a windfall to those with PECs.
2
Posted on 2/27/20 at 9:30 am to SlackMaster
quote:
In the case of a PEC, there is no risk to evaluate. The condition is a guarantee, by definition. So, requiring coverage of PECs is a windfall to those with PECs.
And if the insured with the PEC has been paying premium into his former group, his leaving his former group, which has received the actuarially adjusted premium to factor in that condition, gets a windfall.
And the group that the insured joins also gets a windfall from every insured with a PEC which left for a different group, and pays for each insured with a PED who joins.
You are only accounting for one event. That's monkey math. Actuarial work has to account for all of the events and the effects on the group as a whole.
Try again.
Posted on 2/27/20 at 12:00 pm to SlackMaster
quote:Correct. And a collective expense (not an underwriting) to the other members of the group.
In the case of a PEC, there is no risk to evaluate. The condition is a guarantee, by definition. So, requiring coverage of PECs is a windfall to those with PECs.
These tards don't understand you can insure a very unlikely risk with only a small amount of assets. But in the collectivist model you need 100% coverage of the risk x every PEC individual. It takes exponentially more underwriting assets.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News