View Poll Results: (Fill in the blank) People should pay more for health insurance if they _________.

Voters
39. You may not vote on this poll
  • smoke

    28 71.79%
  • are overweight

    19 48.72%
  • are underweight

    8 20.51%
  • don't exercise on a normal basis or aren't active

    10 25.64%
  • don't eat a balanced diet

    9 23.08%
  • have a previous medical condition

    12 30.77%
  • have a family history of a medical condition

    6 15.38%
  • are older

    16 41.03%
  • can afford it

    3 7.69%
  • Other (explain)

    10 25.64%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ... 3111213
Results 121 to 130 of 130

Thread: When should health insurance cost more for someone?

  1. #121
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: When should health insurance cost more for someone?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    It wasn't demonstrably flawed, you just disagree with me. When you start charging people varying amounts of money on risk, you've moved past an insurance model which mixes the various risk classes into a single, aggregated payment group to a more market based system.
    No. You dont. Yuor "single aggregated payment group" necessarily must include the same market-based evaluation of risk - the only difference is that those who create that risk pay more than those that dont.
    This in no way means that the risk is not aggregated over a large population.
    Thus, your premise is flawed.

    That's no longer insurance; that's more like paying your own way.
    No, Its not. Your costs are still aggregated over a large population.

    Aggregation of risk does not mean individually assigning risk factors to the individuals who are supposed to make up the aggregated group. There's actually no aggregation in the model under which various risk assessments are made and premiums changed.
    This is false. If you were correct then your premiums would equal your costs. That they do not indicates that your costs are aggregated over a large population.

    You charge people market value based on their choices; but if that's the case why have insurance?
    To aggregate risk over a large population.

    What is a natural condition? Obesity, diabetes? Things of that nature? Essentially you're looking at various things with various probabilities. Statistically smokers die earlier and have many health problems. Individually, however, it may not be the case. It's possible for an entirely healthy person to get cancer while someone who has been smoking a lot suffers no perceived ill effects. So you want to charge individually on things which occur statistically. Which is market value evaluation, and of which is not insurance.
    All insurance is based on exactly that; as such you are arguing that insurance does not exist.
    And you still didnt answer the question - why does a 'natural' condition get a pass?

    Because that's the purpose of insurance.
    No... the purpose is to aggregate risk over a large population.
    The discussion here is 'additional risk' posed by a 'natural' condition. You insist that those that do not pose that risk subsidize the costs of those that do, but there's no sound argument for it.

    It's like this, you wanna bitch about assuming other people's risk. I pay car insurance. I also happen to be a damned fine driver. In my 17 years of driving, I've had 1 speeding ticket. Yet I still pay car insurance. It's a lower premium due to my awesomeness at driving; but it's not zero.
    That's because you still pose a risk. Just a smaller one than someone with a bad record.

    So I've been paying for almost 2 decades now for other people's accidents.
    Yes... because the poit of insurance is to aggregate risk over a large population

    For other people's behavior. Why should i have paid all that money for something I wasn't using? Even with some amount of mitigation to my premiums, I've been assuming the risk of others.
    Yes... because the point of insurance is to aggregate risk over a large population.
    Given that these people pa a HIGHER premium than you indicates that THEY are paying for that additional risk, not you.

    The fact that you think your insurance should go down because you do not pose the same risk as others indicates that you aree that insurance premiums should reflect risk, in dorect opposition to your original premise.

  2. #122
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: When should health insurance cost more for someone?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    No. You dont. Yuor "single aggregated payment group" necessarily must include the same market-based evaluation of risk - the only difference is that those who create that risk pay more than those that dont.
    This in no way means that the risk is not aggregated over a large population.
    Thus, your premise is flawed.
    It does mean that my risk is not aggregated since my risk is calculated specifically for me and my conditions. That's a personal case, not an aggregated case. Aggregation means that you take the average of a large sample set. Individual risk assessment means that you individually assess risk; that is not aggregation. Just because I pay money into a company that a bunch of other people are paying into doesn't mean that I've aggregated my risk. I'm paying for my specific risk, a bunch of people happen to pay into the same company at their specific risk values. It's not aggregation just through coincidence of paying into the same company.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    No, Its not. Your costs are still aggregated over a large population.
    No, they are not. I pay specifically for my circumstances and choices; that's not aggregation. That's individualistic risk assessment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    This is false. If you were correct then your premiums would equal your costs. That they do not indicates that your costs are aggregated over a large population.
    This is false. My premium would not equal my costs. In fact, the sum of all my premiums would have to be greater than my costs, else the company doesn't net a win. If I am charged my individual risk value my premiums are essentially a savings account (not insurance). I pay in every month noting that at some point I'll need that money. My risk isn't aggregated since it's valued for my specific conditions, thus insurance acts more as a health savings account than actual insurance. But a piss poor savings account because insurance tends to do all they can to not pay out. In a savings account, at least I can always withdraw the money.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    To aggregate risk over a large population.
    But if you charge people for specific, individual risk values, you have not aggregated that risk. You've been charged full amount.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    All insurance is based on exactly that; as such you are arguing that insurance does not exist.
    The insurance industry in America is hardly real insurance. Particularly auto insurance since it is mandatory for all. Insurance operates more as a saving account at best and a scam at nominal value.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    And you still didnt answer the question - why does a 'natural' condition get a pass?
    I did

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    No... the purpose is to aggregate risk over a large population.
    The discussion here is 'additional risk' posed by a 'natural' condition. You insist that those that do not pose that risk subsidize the costs of those that do, but there's no sound argument for it.
    There's no "additional risk". The aggregated risk value of the system is the aggregated risk value of the system. It's an average of all parts. That's aggregation. If you add in "additional risk", it's no longer aggregated. Not on the risk front. There's no "spreading out" risk. It's been individualized; which is the opposite definition of aggregate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    That's because you still pose a risk. Just a smaller one than someone with a bad record.
    I pose minimal risk, yet am not allowed to reap that outcome. I'm not allowed to get rid of my insurance either. So I pay for everyone else. The same thing you're bitching about with health insurance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Yes... because the poit of insurance is to aggregate risk over a large population
    Yes, that is the point of insurance. However, we have individual risk assessment for the individual people and their specific circumstances which is no longer aggregation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Yes... because the point of insurance is to aggregate risk over a large population.
    Given that these people pa a HIGHER premium than you indicates that THEY are paying for that additional risk, not you.
    And that means that their risk has not been aggregated over a large population. It's not a tough concept to understand.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    The fact that you think your insurance should go down because you do not pose the same risk as others indicates that you aree that insurance premiums should reflect risk, in dorect opposition to your original premise.
    No, I think I should be allowed to opt out of insurance all together. However, with car insurance, I have also stated it's no longer insurance since everyone has to have it. At that point, it's just probabilities. X number of people will have accidents, X number of people will have insurance. You're guaranteed at that point to have to pay out. So all that's left is for individual insurance companies to try to play off each other. The goal is to maximize the number of low risk drivers who pay into your system while minimizing the number of high risk drivers. That's why car insurance companies will often give lots of breaks for very good drivers. They know that you're not likely to get in a wreck, so they can just have your money. If everyone has to have it, it's not insurance since the system on the whole is guaranteed to realize all probabilities.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  3. #123
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: When should health insurance cost more for someone?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    The insurance industry in America is hardly real insurance.
    Aha.
    That's all you had to say.
    Thanks for playing.

  4. #124
    Sage
    UtahBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,687

    Re: When should health insurance cost more for someone?

    The young think they are immortal, then they get old.
    There are almost no serious illnesses in my family. I can eat what I want, and my cholesterol numbers are good. My blood pressure is that of a much younger man.
    My mother had diabetes, but not til she was in her 60's. She died in her mid 80's. My father ignored a warning he got with his union job retirement physical, the doc said he had symptoms of colon cancer. Still, he made it to 75. Probably would have lived another 10 years had he gone to the doctor when he was advised to...
    Both my parents smoked a lot, drank a little. All of my siblings smoked a lot, and 2 of them drank too much. They are enjoying much better health than they deserve.

    I never smoked and rarely drank alcohol. Never did drugs.
    Why am I the one to get Parkinson's? Just plain bad luck, I guess.
    Aggregate that!!!
    Oracle of Utah
    Truth rings hollow in empty heads.

  5. #125
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: When should health insurance cost more for someone?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Aha.
    That's all you had to say.
    Thanks for playing.
    Well it's not, not by the actual definition of insurance. It's mostly just a scam; but the base by which is operates is not an insurance base. It's a market price base. Insurance is mitigating risk through aggregation for the individual. Individual risk assessment is mitigating risk through additional charges for the company.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  6. #126
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: When should health insurance cost more for someone?

    Quote Originally Posted by UtahBill View Post
    The young think they are immortal, then they get old.
    There are almost no serious illnesses in my family. I can eat what I want, and my cholesterol numbers are good. My blood pressure is that of a much younger man.
    My mother had diabetes, but not til she was in her 60's. She died in her mid 80's. My father ignored a warning he got with his union job retirement physical, the doc said he had symptoms of colon cancer. Still, he made it to 75. Probably would have lived another 10 years had he gone to the doctor when he was advised to...
    Both my parents smoked a lot, drank a little. All of my siblings smoked a lot, and 2 of them drank too much. They are enjoying much better health than they deserve.

    I never smoked and rarely drank alcohol. Never did drugs.
    Why am I the one to get Parkinson's? Just plain bad luck, I guess.
    Aggregate that!!!
    Yes, that's exactly the point. Is that insurance is supposed to spread risk around for the customers. Because even with statistics and probabilities, no one knows how those probabilities can work out. Smokers may on average die sooner or have more health problems, but that doesn't mean the individual who smokes will necessarily realize those consequences. Same with healthy folk. So when we start charging different amounts to different people; we're doing so off of the statistics and applying it to the individual to minimize loss by the company. You're not so much in insurance-ville there anymore. A true insurance game would say "Ok, X people get cancer a year, there are Y people in the population, so that's x/y probability for any one individual to get it. It costs Z to treat, thus we charge everyone some amount which reflects the cost of the procedure and the probability of any one of our clients getting it.".
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  7. #127
    Stigmatized! End R Word! Kali's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Last Seen
    08-19-12 @ 12:29 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    13,334
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: When should health insurance cost more for someone?

    I would have said None
    ~Following My Own Flow~

  8. #128
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: When should health insurance cost more for someone?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aunt Spiker View Post
    If someone's ____ is caused by a personal CHOICE which doesn't have an unavoidable, natural MEDICAL cause - it shouldn't cost MORE per month - but what they end up paying *out of pocket* for subsequent medical issues SHOULD be more.

    Smoking (someone is choosing to light up or use)
    Overweight (in the absence of a medical-issue the majority of those who are obese are so due to their own personal *choices* in life)
    Underweight (just like overweight - in the absence of medical-issues . . . )
    Don't exercise/Don't eat right (again - person *choice* is the culprit)

    If your health problems are caused by your *choices* that you decide to make - then you should cover more out of pocket expenses . . . but monthly cost? I think that shouldn't waiver.

    But having someone in your family with a problem - or being born/developing a problem that's natural and not related to these personal-decision issues - that's a different story. You have *no* control over these things . . . just like gender and race.
    How do you define "underweight"? I know many people who would be considered underweight based on BMI, but most of them have naturally very slender frames (nearly all of them are Asian). One of my high school students is very thin, but she eats all the time. She, like others, is just naturally thin. Also, I have seen results of students on underweight people that show that they don't have significantly more health issues than normal weight people unless the weight is a result of anorexia/bulimia, unlike obesity which we know is linked to multiple health issues.
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  9. #129
    Cheese
    Aunt Spiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sasnakra
    Last Seen
    09-10-16 @ 06:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,433

    Re: When should health insurance cost more for someone?

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    How do you define "underweight"? I know many people who would be considered underweight based on BMI, but most of them have naturally very slender frames (nearly all of them are Asian). One of my high school students is very thin, but she eats all the time. She, like others, is just naturally thin. Also, I have seen results of students on underweight people that show that they don't have significantly more health issues than normal weight people unless the weight is a result of anorexia/bulimia, unlike obesity which we know is linked to multiple health issues.
    Non-medical conditions of bulimia, anorexia, obsessive exercise, a obvious lack of eating. . . to which someone becomes unhealthily underweight - like me when I was in high-school.

    But that's actually far less common - most people don't become underweight for non-medical reasons. . . it's more common, though, to be overweight for non-medical reasons. In fact, unlike obesity, I can't think of anyone I've ever known who was emaciated - by choice - everyone had a diagnosed medical condition that lead to it.
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

  10. #130
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: When should health insurance cost more for someone?

    Having a poor quality diet growing up leads to an emaciated, elongated figure later on too. It's a constitutional thing.

Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ... 3111213

Posting Permissions

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