- 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: Question to libs about prexisting conditions and high risk
Posted on 9/21/17 at 10:34 am to NYNolaguy1
Posted on 9/21/17 at 10:34 am to NYNolaguy1
quote:
Are we alluding to the fact that white people are healthier than black people across the world?
Maybe, if you have a mouse in your pocket or are speaking French.
This post was edited on 9/21/17 at 10:34 am
Posted on 9/21/17 at 10:49 am to roadGator
quote:
I've never had an auto insurance claim. If I cause three accidents in three months do you think the insurance company should not be able to charge me more because of the new risk I've presented?
I understand what your saying. But auto-insurance isn't exactly the same as health insurance, especially if you want to compare how premiums are set. For auto insurance, when you have a few claims in a year, you are deemed more risky and your premiums may go up, and whose at fault weighs heavily on this, though some things out of your control, such as if your windshield is constantly getting cracked, can also factor in. You will receive the benefits to cover the costs of those accidents according to your plan.
However, for health insurance, if you get something serious, like cancer, you will need to exercise your policy and file claims for many years or even the rest of your life. That's not exactly the same or similar circumstances as why auto-insurers increase premiums.
Do I think health insurance companies should be able to adjust premiums based on new risks due to something like cancer, that may be no fault of the person insured? No. If I picked up smoking, then sure, because that was my choice. You mentioned in another post that there are other medical conditions that result in person choice, like heart disease. True, but that is a lot harder to prove than who is at fault in an auto accident, which makes health insurance a very different animal than auto insurance. Health Insurers are betting on me and everyone else in their plan paying them in perpetuity and never getting a serious illness, and in most cases, they are right. That's how they make money. They need to pay up when they lose that bet.
This post was edited on 9/21/17 at 10:57 am
Posted on 9/21/17 at 10:56 am to NYNolaguy1
quote:
The ironic part of this is that other countries with far more socialistic programs have better life expectancy for less money. Lets not pretend we have some sort of great efficient system over here.
We're also the unhealthiest and most drug taking country in the world. Of course, other systems will not have the same success here. If you want to call them successes.
This post was edited on 9/21/17 at 11:02 am
Posted on 9/21/17 at 11:01 am to SUB
quote:
if you want to compare how premiums are set
They are identical in the way premiums are set.
quote:
Do I think health insurance companies should be able to adjust premiums based on new risks due to something like cancer, that may be no fault of the person insured? No.
Then how do those claims get paid in the future? As new information is gathered risk assessments are adjusted and actuaries use that data to set rates.
If you can't adjust your pricing due to risk then it's not insurance.
Auto insurance and health insurance are actuarially the same. You may not think so and that's OK.
The process of setting rates is identical.
Most of what insurance companies are paid to do is actuarial in nature. That's what they are paid to be really good at at the end of the day.
We'll have to agree to disagree. By the way, my insurance career began in underwriting. I'm just dangerous enough to question actuaries but not smart enough to challenge their final word.
Actuaries are terrible people as a rule by the way.
This post was edited on 9/21/17 at 11:03 am
Posted on 9/21/17 at 11:27 am to roadGator
quote:
They are identical in the way premiums are set.
If you are talking about risk as a whole, then yes. But the risk factors used are very different, no?
quote:
If you can't adjust your pricing due to risk then it's not insurance.
Definition of insurance is "a practice or arrangement by which a company or government agency provides a guarantee of compensation for specified loss, damage, illness, or death in return for payment of a premium."
Now, I understand that an insurance policy may provide for premium adjustments in the event of loss, damage, illness, etc, but all I'm saying is that I don't think it's right to adjust for certain factors. I'm paying for protection from getting a serious illness, and what you are saying, is that there is no guaranteed compensation for an illness, since insurers can just adjust premiums to whatever they see fit based on new risks. That isn't insurance. That's a subsidized health plan. It's not protection if my premiums can be extremely increased if a serious event occurs at no fault of my own.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 11:38 am to SUB
quote:
I'm paying for protection from getting a serious illness
That's not what you are paying for. I don't even think you believe that. CAn you rephrase that? Not trying to be a dick.
Yes, the risk factors being evaluated are different between a company that insures automobiles, health, shipping containers, renters, etc. You are absolutely correct. The methodology is the same.
quote:
I don't think it's right to adjust for certain factors
OK. If you insure shipping containers and your insured is sending containers through an area known to be full of pirates should they be able to charge more? When you first began providing them insurance they didn't serve pirate infested waters?
Of course, they should be able to charge more because the new data available says that they are a higher risk due to freaky pirates.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 11:50 am to SUB
Even though the actuarial process may be the same, heath and auto insurance are different animals. Most people pay somewhere between $50-200 for auto insurance because the risk profile of each person doesn't vary too significantly. Everyone gets in accidents from time to time.
With health insurance, the elderly and the chronic patients eat up most of the costs. Everyone else is just subsidizing their care, whether through premiums or taxpayer funded subsidies. There is so much disparity in risk that it's difficult to put people into pools together.
With health insurance, the elderly and the chronic patients eat up most of the costs. Everyone else is just subsidizing their care, whether through premiums or taxpayer funded subsidies. There is so much disparity in risk that it's difficult to put people into pools together.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 11:54 am to cahoots
quote:
Everyone else is just subsidizing their care
Just like auto insurance premiums subsidize those drivers that get into more accidents.
Just like the living and breathing people that pay premiums for life insurance subsidize the poor soul that died before his time.
Just like every other insurance policy.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 11:57 am to roadGator
quote:
Just like auto insurance premiums subsidize those drivers that get into more accidents.
Just like the living and breathing people that pay premiums for life insurance subsidize the poor soul that died before his time.
Just like every other insurance policy.
I understand that insurance is inherently a subsidy for some and a cost for others. I'm just saying that healthcare is particularly difficult because there is so much disparity in healthcare costs among different people.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 12:02 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
SlowFlowPro
Please list the part in Graham-Cassidy that specifically segregates lifestyle choices from genetic causes. Also include how that will be calculated, by whom, and how often.
Since we're talking about G-C, and it doesn't do that, let's all remember that everyone with a PEC gets absolutely fricked by this piece of shite bill.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 12:03 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
Please list the part in Graham-Cassidy that specifically segregates lifestyle choices from genetic causes.
please list your evidence showing where i support that abortion of a law
Posted on 9/21/17 at 12:04 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
no they haven't
Yes, they have. By their own (and any unbiased source's) admission.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 12:05 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
Yes, they have. By their own (and any unbiased source's) admission.
so waiting times for diagnostic procedures and GP visits are the same in the US and UK or Canada?
Posted on 9/21/17 at 12:06 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
please list your evidence showing where i support that abortion of a law
You're on a mighty high horse over PECs in this thread for someone who doesn't support that law, given what it does to PECs in this country.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 12:11 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
You're on a mighty high horse over PECs in this thread for someone who doesn't support that law, given what it does to PECs in this country.
i told you earlier. i'm not a Republican
i don't believe that goverment should be involved in health care and it should be private contracts between consumers, providers, and sometimes voluntarily-chosen middle men (likely insurance companies). so that means i can hate the ACA and the abortion of a bill the GOP is trying to pass
my non-extreme policy solution is this: take all federal funding of health care (so all NIH grants, Medicare, Medicaid, VA, etc spending), cut about 25% of it and create a national insurance program. all you have to do is opt in and you have coverage. also that funding cannot influence any private choice or funding (so if a Dr decides to take that public insurance he is not mandated to anything else, or if he doesn't accept it, vice versa). the federal insurance budget is set with 1% annual increases and that amount cannot be changed for 100 years
Posted on 9/21/17 at 12:14 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
NIH grants
You probably lost her right there with that one
BamaATL will never agree to any solution that affects her paycheck.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 12:21 pm to Centinel
i know my audience, sir
but seriously my compromise solution gives Bama everything she wants
1. universal access
2. government insurance issued without profit motive
3. PECs covered (really part of 1 but specifically listing due to thread theme)
i'm curious if she agrees that's the best route for our current system
but seriously my compromise solution gives Bama everything she wants
1. universal access
2. government insurance issued without profit motive
3. PECs covered (really part of 1 but specifically listing due to thread theme)
i'm curious if she agrees that's the best route for our current system
Posted on 9/21/17 at 12:21 pm to BamaAtl
quote:tired strawman is tired.
Yeah, if you're sick, you should die in a gutter somewhere
quote:Nope. The have lower standards of care, and ration care. Try again.
Every other OECD country in the world has figured it out,
quote:Completely supported by fact, and I've presented the calcs here before.
That's an odd %, and in no way supported by facts.
quote:My calculated required taxation rate is a lot stronger case than your strawman that people will be left to die in the streets.
Your incorrect fantasy on how high taxes might go to prevent a policy you disagree with doesn't change reality.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 12:23 pm to BamaAtl
quote:No one is forced to receive care against their will.
When you realize that health status in large part is decoupled from personal choice
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News