Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 112

Thread: Firms to charge smokers & obese more for healthcare

  1. #51
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: Firms to charge smokers & obese more for healthcare

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    I was responding Goshin and his point about raising taxes on these issues.
    Goshin wasn't referring to raising taxes, I don't think.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  2. #52
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The greatest city on Earth
    Last Seen
    08-04-12 @ 04:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    31,089

    Re: Firms to charge smokers & obese more for healthcare

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    But see, if that's the basis of your argument, you're completely better off without insurance at all, and everyone should just pay the going rate for healthcare if the goal is to shape people's behavior.
    wait...so paying $350 a month for insurance rather than $250 a month for insurance, is a poorer choice than paying $50,000 for surgery?

    how does that work?

  3. #53
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Firms to charge smokers & obese more for healthcare

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    Goshin wasn't referring to raising taxes, I don't think.
    You're right.

    He said "rates".

  4. #54
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: Firms to charge smokers & obese more for healthcare

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder View Post
    wait...so paying $350 a month for insurance rather than $250 a month for insurance, is a poorer choice than paying $50,000 for surgery?

    how does that work?
    Not sure what you're trying to get at.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  5. #55
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

    Re: Firms to charge smokers & obese more for healthcare

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    Don't whine when they raise rates for people who skateboard, snowboard, snowski, skydive, rock-climb... or work in energy, construction, chemical factories, or any profession that drives a lot... or owns a sports car or muscle car or or or....
    Actually, I hope it raises rates on those who work in energy, construction, chemical factories because that way businesses will be pushed to provided safer and healthier work environments, especially for employer-based health care systems.
    Also, we need to legalize recreational drugs and prostitution.

  6. #56
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The greatest city on Earth
    Last Seen
    08-04-12 @ 04:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    31,089

    Re: Firms to charge smokers & obese more for healthcare

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    Not sure what you're trying to get at.
    its pretty clear.

  7. #57
    Student Boring Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Chicago Suburb
    Last Seen
    10-01-13 @ 06:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    230

    Re: Firms to charge smokers & obese more for healthcare

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    But see, if that's the basis of your argument, you're completely better off without insurance at all, and everyone should just pay the going rate for healthcare if the goal is to incentivize people's behavior.
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the point of insurance is to pay small manageable sums of money for the guarantee that, in the rare event of a catastrophe happening to you, you will have access to a very large sum of money to help solve said catastrophe. For example, 50 people pay for health insurance during May, and 2 people actually needed it that month, so the costs of monthly payments is based on the average cost of care for those 2 people split amongst the 50, plus a bit for profits. If so, then the people rarely benefiting from their health insurance are using the system properly.

    If you drive your car into a tree while drunk, will your car insurance pay for a replacement? I'm of the opinion that insurance in general should not cover harm that came about due to one's own actions. Health insurance should be for instances entirely out of the beneficiary's control, not chronic conditions that came about as a result of a failed lifestyle. In Thunder's scenario, the going rate for health insurance should be reduced, and the people benefiting from it disproportionately should either not be covered for health problems related to their lifestyle/actions or sign up for a different policy that specifically includes coverage for lifestyle diseases but costs significantly more.

  8. #58
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Firms to charge smokers & obese more for healthcare

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    I agree with Ikari on this. If we're going to adjust individual's premiums according to risk, we might as well just get rid of insurance altogether. You're not "spreading" risk around by factoring it in.

    In the scenario above, the 21-year-old could simply choose not to buy health insurance at all.
    Personally, I think we should just go with a NHC system.

    But... most insurance now days does take into account risk factors. For example, my husband and I have renter's insurance. We moved from Raleigh, NC to San Diego, CA. We had to answer questions about the places that our property was in both upon starting the insurance and changing it to the new residence. Some of these included having smoke detectors, burglar alarm and in use, sprinkler system, other alarms. Despite having more safety measures in this new home, we are paying at least twice as much than in NC just because of the city we are in. If not for all the things military housing provides, we would probably be paying 3X as much.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  9. #59
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: Firms to charge smokers & obese more for healthcare

    Quote Originally Posted by Boring Bob View Post
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the point of insurance is to pay small manageable sums of money for the guarantee that, in the rare event of a catastrophe happening to you, you will have access to a very large sum of money to help solve said catastrophe. For example, 50 people pay for health insurance during May, and 2 people actually needed it that month, so the costs of monthly payments is based on the average cost of care for those 2 people split amongst the 50, plus a bit for profits. If so, then the people rarely benefiting from their health insurance are using the system properly.
    Agreed, the primary goal of an insurance system is to POOL risk.

    If you drive your car into a tree while drunk, will your car insurance pay for a replacement? I'm of the opinion that insurance in general should not cover harm that came about due to one's own actions. Health insurance should be for instances entirely out of the beneficiary's control, not chronic conditions that came about as a result of a failed lifestyle. In Thunder's scenario, the going rate for health insurance should be reduced, and the people benefiting from it disproportionately should either not be covered for health problems related to their lifestyle/actions or sign up for a different policy that specifically includes coverage for lifestyle diseases but costs significantly more.
    I don't agree entirely here, and now we are coming up on precisely what's wrong with what insurance has become in practice, rather than what it should be. As Ikari said earlier, the goal of insurance is to pool risk. In an ideal insurance system, participation would be completely voluntary (this is important) and everyone who chooses to participate would be paying the same rate. Under such circumstances, people still have the economic incentive to live healthier lives, or engage in less risky driving behavior, because curbing such behavior would lower everyone's premiums no matter who they are.

    Once the insurance starts pricing in risk into premiums, it ceases to function the way insurance is meant to function, and instead you effectively have a market-based, pay-go system in all but name only.

    Now, this is purely my opinion about how an ideal insurance system should actually work. My opinions on how the ideal healthcare system should work are an entirely different matter.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  10. #60
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: Firms to charge smokers & obese more for healthcare

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Personally, I think we should just go with a NHC system.
    Didn't think we'd actually agree on something like this, but hey

    But... most insurance now days does take into account risk factors. For example, my husband and I have renter's insurance. We moved from Raleigh, NC to San Diego, CA. We had to answer questions about the places that our property was in both upon starting the insurance and changing it to the new residence. Some of these included having smoke detectors, burglar alarm and in use, sprinkler system, other alarms. Despite having more safety measures in this new home, we are paying at least twice as much than in NC just because of the city we are in. If not for all the things military housing provides, we would probably be paying 3X as much.
    It's no secret that insurance today takes risk factors into account. I just think that doing so kinda defeats the purpose of insurance.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •