- 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 9:16 am to TBoy
Posted on 2/27/20 at 9:16 am to TBoy
quote:
You may argue that allowing a new insured in a group policy impacts the group negatively when the new insured is already receiving ongoing treatment. But that statement does not take into account the positive effect on the group when an existing insured who receives ongoing treatment leaves the group. If these two common events are considered under actuarial analysis, it's a wash
Yikes. You clearly don’t understand actuarials. Your bloviating doesn’t change the fact it is a math game. Numbers don’t lie.
1
Posted on 2/27/20 at 9:17 am to TBoy
Just stop lying.
Posted on 2/27/20 at 9:18 am to CaTiger85
quote:
You clearly don’t understand actuarials.
Hep me to your wisdom. And to make this fun, I won't tell you what I've been doing professionally for about 35 years. Now go ahead and explain it to me.
Posted on 2/27/20 at 9:19 am to TBoy
quote:
Hep me to your wisdom. And to make this fun, I won't tell you what I've been doing professionally for about 35 years.
It's cute you think that there's no possible chance a moron has survived in an industry for 35 years.
Posted on 2/27/20 at 9:20 am to TBoy
You haven’t been doing health insurance. That’s clear.
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.
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 9:35 am to TBoy
quote:
Hep me to your wisdom. And to make this fun, I won't tell you what I've been doing professionally for about 35 years. Now go ahead and explain it to me.
Likely a life guy, right? You certainly haven’t been doing health insurance for 35 years. That is painfully obvious.
Posted on 2/27/20 at 9:36 am to TBoy
quote:
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.
I thought the entire point of this was to get people insurance who couldn’t get it due to PEC. That’s not a wash, mensa, that’s a new group being added to the equation.
Posted on 2/27/20 at 9:45 am to Flats
quote:
I thought the entire point of this was to get people insurance who couldn’t get it due to PEC.
No, that's not what PEC exclusions typically provided. Prior to HIPPA the PEC clause excluded coverage for any PEC for a period of time, commonly one year.
So the way this worked was that you had a job which provided health insurance and you had, for example, high blood pressure or some other kind of ongoing condition. If you couldn't afford to pay out of pocket for whatever your treatment was, at full cash price, you were economically locked into your job to keep your health insurance, for which premium was being paid.
Or if you were laid off or fired, you still had to cash pay for any PEC on your new employer's policy for the exclusionary period.
But you haven't been a "freeloader" anywhere. You have always paid the policy premium. So has everyone else who was moving from policy group to policy group. The insurers were not actually losing premium dollars and nobody was "stealing" or getting a "handout."
This propaganda only appeals to uninformed people.
Posted on 2/27/20 at 10:12 am to Zach
Yep, you shouldn't be able to jump into the responsible decision once you become sick.
It's like hitting retirement age and expecting a salary when you've paid nothing in, all while the responsible people paid in their 10%.
Makes absolutely zero sense.
Little do some of these people know, they could sign up for tax deferred/pretax options for both healthcare and retirement and then qualify for entitlements that already exist for living expenses. But they're probably too dumb and shortsighted to look into it.
It's like hitting retirement age and expecting a salary when you've paid nothing in, all while the responsible people paid in their 10%.
Makes absolutely zero sense.
Little do some of these people know, they could sign up for tax deferred/pretax options for both healthcare and retirement and then qualify for entitlements that already exist for living expenses. But they're probably too dumb and shortsighted to look into it.
This post was edited on 2/27/20 at 10:15 am
Posted on 2/27/20 at 10:19 am to Zach
Pre-existing conditions wasn’t an issue before Obamacare if you had a full time job . I have a pre-existing condition and Obamacare has killed me financially.
Posted on 2/27/20 at 10:22 am to Zach
Insurance is predicated on unknown risk. Pre-existing conditions are known risks.
Posted on 2/27/20 at 10:28 am to TBoy
quote:
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.
Not true, if you understand the fundamental essence of insurance: the spreading of financial risk. If a person has a PEC, even what they were paying into the previous plan is FAR less than the cost of the PEC. That's why we buy insurance -- to spread the risk and associated costs.
Posted on 2/27/20 at 10:40 am to TBoy
quote:
Prior to HIPPA the PEC clause excluded coverage for any PEC for a period of time, commonly one year.
This is another damn lie. Most states had already taken steps to eliminate the problem before HIPAA. So no, your statement isn't true.
FFS
Posted on 2/27/20 at 10:44 am to roadGator
quote:He's so full of shite. He's on a team. He just repeats the team line with no real thought put to it at all. He also has zero self-awareness.
Another fricking lie. Group insurance doesn’t have PEC clauses.
Stop fricking lying. WFT is wrong with you people?
The educated elite...lol
Posted on 2/27/20 at 10:48 am to TBoy
quote:Good grief are you misinformed. Do some actual reading on this. By the way, covering PEC is not insurance. Just making sure you know this.
Now, to ask you to double stop lying because the OP's and Rush's suggestion is that protections against PEC exclusions is "theft" or some kind of "handout." That is complete bullshite. If I pay my premium into my health insurance but then have to move to a different policy because of a job change, haven't I given premium to my previous insurer for the coverage? Yes I have. The same can be said for everyone who has to move to a different package. The same insurance companies which would deny coverage for one year for "newcomers" would pocket the premium, and pay no more benefits, for those who left for another insurer. The PEC exclusion was a windfall for insurers due to the turbidity of insureds caused by nothing more than the shifting job market. PEC exclusions are theft by insurers.
Posted on 2/27/20 at 11:42 am to Zach
quote:
Anyone else here heard it? He just spent the first 20 minutes of hour 2 on how insurance works. Nothing new. Then he dropped the bomb. If people with pre existing conditions don't have to pay what actuarial tables would indicate then you can't call it insurance. You could call it entitlement...you could call it welfare. But it's not insurance.
You guys gonna let the dick pill opiate addict talk you into undermining your own health now?
Posted on 2/27/20 at 11:55 am to SavageOrangeJug
quote:Nope. In some cases a single underwriter may hold all of the risk.
This is how insurance works.
quote:
No amount of your uninformed bullshite will change that fact.
How many insurance pricing frameworks have you modeled?Posted on 2/27/20 at 11:57 am to blackinthesaddle
quote:
undermining your own health now
Another prog idiot
Page 10 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News