re: Question to libs about prexisting conditions and high risk

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

I'll allow it.

quote:

---

NIH grants

---

You probably lost her right there with that one

BamaATL will never agree to any solution that affects her paycheck.

quote:

---

Yeah, if you're sick, you should die in a gutter somewhere

---

tired strawman is tired.

quote:

---

Every other OECD country in the world has figured it out,

---

Nope. The have lower standards of care, and ration care. Try again.

quote:

---

That's an odd %, and in no way supported by facts.

---

Completely supported by fact, and I've presented the calcs here before.

quote:

---

Your incorrect fantasy on how high taxes might go to prevent a policy you disagree with doesn't change reality.

---

My calculated required taxation rate is a lot stronger case than your strawman that people will be left to die in the streets.