• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Health insurers offer to stop charging sick people more

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Insurers offer to stop charging sick people more

WASHINGTON – The health insurance industry offered Tuesday for the first time to curb its controversial practice of charging higher premiums to people with a history of medical problems.

The offer from America's Health Insurance Plans and the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association is a potentially significant shift in the debate over reforming the nation's health care system to rein in costs and cover an estimated 48 million uninsured people. It was contained in a letter to key senators.

In the letter, the two insurance industry groups said their members are willing to "phase out the practice of varying premiums based on health status in the individual market" if all Americans are required to get coverage.

This is an excellent idea, and is a compromise that I have been encouraging for quite some time. If everyone is required to have health insurance, then there won't be any problem of people waiting until they get sick and then getting insurance at a cheap price. I hope that the Obama Administration will consider this option as an important part of its health care plan.

It's good to see the insurance companies willing to make this compromise, and I think this bodes well for the future of health insurance in this country.
 
Last edited:
Ah... the freedom to choose.

And if you choose not to have health insurance and get hit by a bus tomorrow, you're going to expect the taxpayers to foot the bill for your ER care. You might swear up and down that you won't, but you will. People tend to forget political ideology when they're bleeding underneath a bus.

So instead of making me pay for your health insurance (assuming you're able to afford insurance and are just being irresponsible), I'd rather the government just mandate that you buy it yourself if you can afford it.
 
Last edited:
And if you choose not to have health insurance and get hit by a bus tomorrow, you're going to expect the taxpayers to foot the bill for your ER bill. You might swear up and down that you won't, but you will. People tend to forget political ideology when they're bleeding underneath a bus.

I'd rather the government just make you buy it yourself if you can afford it.
Yes. You'd rather the government take away our choices, in order to benefit some version of the 'common good'.

I have a whole list of choices that I'd like to take away from you, to that end.
 
Yes. You'd rather the government take away our choices, in order to benefit some version of the 'common good'.

Partly. I'm not a fan of subsidizing your irresponsibility, if you're perfectly able to afford health insurance.

Goobieman said:
I have a whole list of choices that I'd like to take away from you, to that end.

Good luck. ;)
 
No. Wholly.
And to be specifc, you'd have the government do it to benefit YOUR version of the common good -- other version sneed not apply.

Good luck.
Yes -- that's exactly it.

You're fine with removing peoples' right to choose when YOU think its a good idea, and against it when you don't.

You're simply trying to impose your version of right and wrong, and will squeal like a stuck pig when someone does it to you.

Tell me:
Given that you're all about mandating personal responsibilty and making sure that people dont unnecessarily burden the system because of their irrespeonsible choices, you'll then support the government forcing pregenant women who are on public assistance to have abortions -- especially single mothers that already have a gaggle of kids.

After all, why should we subsidize their irresponsibility?

Right?
 
Last edited:
So instead of making me pay for your health insurance (assuming you're able to afford insurance and are just being irresponsible), I'd rather the government just mandate that you buy it yourself if you can afford it.

There's the key. For many people with pre-existing conditions health insurance isn't only unaffordable, it's impossible. There are quite a few conditions that are automatic dis-qualifiers. No negotiation possible. As a result, most states have 'high-risk pools' for people who simply cannot obtain insurance otherwise. The premiums for high-risk pool insurance might seem reasonable, but the deductibles under these state programs are usually very high.

Got diabetes? A history of cancer? Mental illness? HIV? Insurance can become very problematic.
 
You're fine with removing peoples' right to choose when YOU think its a good idea, and against it when you don't.

Well derrrr. That's quite a tautology, chief.

Goobieman said:
You're simply trying to impose your version of right and wrong, and will squeal like a stuck pig when someone does it to you.

Spare me your moral absolutism. I'm talking about policies that would be beneficial from an economic and sociological perspective, and you're responding with self-righteous moralistic bullcrap. Since I simply do not share your morals, there's really nothing more to discuss on that front. So why not address the economic/sociological merits of the discussion rather than shrieking about the morality of it? You aren't going to win any converts that way.

Goobieman said:
Given that you're all about mandating personal responsibilty and making sure that people dont unnecessarily burden the system because of their irrespeonsible choices, you'll then support the government forcing pregenant women who are on public assistance to have abortions -- especially single mothers that already have a gaggle of kids.

Nope. I'd support government programs to teach sex education in impoverished areas, and hand out free condoms. But not forced abortion. At any rate, stop trying to change the subject. If you don't want to discuss health care policy, create a separate thread. I'm really not interested.
 
Last edited:
There's the key. For many people with pre-existing conditions health insurance isn't only unaffordable, it's impossible. There are quite a few conditions that are automatic dis-qualifiers. No negotiation possible. As a result, most states have 'high-risk pools' for people who simply cannot obtain insurance otherwise. The premiums for high-risk pool insurance might seem reasonable, but the deductibles under these state programs are usually very high.

Got diabetes? A history of cancer? Mental illness? HIV? Insurance can become very problematic.

Exactly. Which is why I'm glad that these health insurance companies have now agreed to compromise on their price discrimination policies, in exchange for the government mandating that people buy health insurance.

As I see it, this will bring new customers to the insurers, while making health insurance more affordable for the people who need it most.
 
never thought i would live to see the day

not saying i will, but the idea that i might....
 
Exactly. Which is why I'm glad that these health insurance companies have now agreed to compromise on their price discrimination policies, in exchange for the government mandating that people buy health insurance.

As I see it, this will bring new customers to the insurers, while making health insurance more affordable for the people who need it most.

How is that type of discrimination bad when these people cost everyone else more?

A lot of the preexisting conditions are only for 1 year. If you have treatable diabetes you can afford that for 1 year.
 
How is that type of discrimination bad when these people cost everyone else more?

Because the people didn't choose to get sick. And because the people who need health care the most are often unable to get it without paying unaffordable premiums...if they can get it at ANY price.

Harry Guerrilla said:
A lot of the preexisting conditions are only for 1 year. If you have treatable diabetes you can afford that for 1 year.

A lot of them aren't only for one year. And a lot of them are not affordable even for one year.
 
Because the people didn't choose to get sick. And because the people who need health care the most are often unable to get it without paying unaffordable premiums...if they can get it at ANY price.

And all those people who didn't choose to get others sick, why do they get no say?

A lot of them aren't only for one year. And a lot of them are not affordable even for one year.

Every contract I have seen has the provision for preexisting conditions set for 1 year.
 
Wow... auto insurance companies going to do the same things? Ignore the "red flag" factors and charge everyone the same? That would AWESOME. You know, especially since anyone who owns a car is required by law to have insurance. It's only fair, right? People who have good driving records shouldn't be rewarded while irresponsible, non-driving fools are punished. It's just not fair, I tells ya!

Oh, and as for not having insurance.... no, sorry. My hospital stays have never been on anyone's dime but my own.
 
Wow... auto insurance companies going to do the same things? Ignore the "red flag" factors and charge everyone the same? That would AWESOME. You know, especially since anyone who owns a car is required by law to have insurance.

Having a car is not necessary to survival. Having your health is.

rivrrat said:
It's only fair, right? People who have good driving records shouldn't be rewarded while irresponsible, non-driving fools are punished. It's just not fair, I tells ya!

Are you comparing terminally ill patients to irresponsible drivers? The key difference here is that being an irresponsible driver is a CHOICE that one can AVOID if one doesn't want to pay the higher premiums.

rivrrat said:
Oh, and as for not having insurance.... no, sorry. My hospital stays have never been on anyone's dime but my own.

Then either A) you haven't had any expensive health problems, or B) you're incredibly wealthy. And since neither case applies to non-wealthy people suffering from expensive-to-treat diseases, your personal anecdote doesn't carry much weight with me. Sorry.
 
Last edited:
And all those people who didn't choose to get others sick, why do they get no say?

They'll have just as much say in terms of what health insurance policy they buy as anyone else does. Since no one chooses to be sick or healthy, it makes no sense for some people to have to pay more than others when they have no control over it.

Harry Guerrilla said:
Every contract I have seen has the provision for preexisting conditions set for 1 year.

Many serious conditions are NEVER covered, regardless of the length of the policy. And this ignores the fact that some conditions are unaffordable for even a single year, and/or that the patient will be dead after a single year without treatment.
 
Last edited:
Having a car is not necessary to survival. Having your health is.
And anyone can have their "health" without health insurance. Having insurance isn't necessary for survival.


Are you comparing terminally ill patients to irresponsible drivers? The key difference here is that being an irresponsible driver is a CHOICE that one can AVOID if one doesn't want to pay the higher premiums.
Really now? So when that car hit ME and my insurance had to pay since the other driver was uninsured you don't think that counted as a red mark against ME? I beg to differ. And when my truck was stolen and damaged and my insurance had to pay to fix it, you don't think that counted against me? I ASSURE you that it most certainly did. Neither things were in my control. I had no choice whatsoever.


Then either A) you haven't had any expensive health problems, or B) you're incredibly wealthy. And since neither case applies to non-wealthy people suffering from expensive-to-treat diseases, your personal anecdote doesn't carry much weight with me. Sorry.
Since neither A nor B apply, how about C) I paid monthly payments until I paid it off. Just like everything else.
 
I'm interested in where they are going to go, for the money they are going to lose. Health insurance companies cannot afford to be alturistic. Maybe these sick people won't have to pay as much, but its going to have to come out of somebody's pocket.

Prehaps we will have a "progressive" healthcare system, where the healthy pay for the sick.
 
I'm interested in where they are going to go, for the money they are going to lose. Health insurance companies cannot afford to be alturistic. Maybe these sick people won't have to pay as much, but its going to have to come out of somebody's pocket.

Prehaps we will have a "progressive" healthcare system, where the healthy pay for the sick.
We already do.. it's called Medicaid and Medicare.
 
They'll have just as much say in terms of what health insurance policy they buy as anyone else does. Since no one chooses to be sick or healthy, it makes no sense for some people to have to pay more than others when they have no control over it.

Some peoples lifestyles are the choices they have made in being sick or not.

I don't like subsidizing others poor choices, it is not my job and it is not their right to have my money.

It makes less sense to create an undercover subsidy that makes one person pay more for another.

Many serious conditions are NEVER covered, regardless of the length of the policy. And this ignores the fact that some conditions are unaffordable for even a single year, and/or that the patient will be dead after a single year without treatment.

Then we should get away from insurance hiding people from the price structure, so that prices can be driven down.
 
We already do.. it's called Medicaid and Medicare.

I'm talking in the private market.

"Well Mr. Smith, you are in excellent health for your age. You are 37, but have the physical fitness of a 21 year old. I'll make sure to forward this information to the health insurance company so that you can pay more in premium to cover for Ms. Johnson, who has high blood pressure and a baby in the NICU because she smoked crack while she was pregnant."
 
Exactly. Which is why I'm glad that these health insurance companies have now agreed to compromise on their price discrimination policies, in exchange for the government mandating that people buy health insurance.

As I see it, this will bring new customers to the insurers, while making health insurance more affordable for the people who need it most.

I might have missed it in the article... but I didn't see where the companies agreed to insure people who are currently uninsurable. Only that they'd not charge exorbitant rates for those they do agree to insure.
 
And anyone can have their "health" without health insurance. Having insurance isn't necessary for survival.

If you have a serious illness and aren't independently wealthy, then insurance is absolutely necessary for survival.

rivrrat said:
Really now? So when that car hit ME and my insurance had to pay since the other driver was uninsured you don't think that counted as a red mark against ME?

No. Not unless your insurance company decided that you were somehow at fault.

rivrrat said:
And when my truck was stolen and damaged and my insurance had to pay to fix it, you don't think that counted against me?

Probably, because you chose to park it somewhere that it got stolen and damaged. But regardless, auto insurance isn't a necessity (and certainly not comprehensive insurance). If your auto insurance is being unfair to you, switch to a different policy. I don't see any need for the government to keep auto insurance companies on a short leash...the same cannot be said of medical insurance companies.

rivrrat said:
Since neither A nor B apply, how about C) I paid monthly payments until I paid it off. Just like everything else.

Well good for you. You were young enough and healthy enough to continue working doing whatever it is you do. That does not apply to everyone.

Your medical bills were relatively inexpensive and/or your salary was relatively high to allow you to pay monthly payments until you paid it off. That does not apply to everyone.
 
Some peoples lifestyles are the choices they have made in being sick or not.

I don't like subsidizing others poor choices, it is not my job and it is not their right to have my money.

This is true, and I have absolutely no problem at all with insurance companies discriminating on the basis of smoking habits, eating habits, alcohol habits, illegal drug habits, exercise habits, etc. If they want to charge a smoker more than a non-smoker, fine.

But preexisting conditions are a different matter, as no one chooses to have them. While I'm fine with charging a smoker or ex-smoker more, I have a big problem with charging a lung cancer patient more. While I'm fine with charging an alcoholic more, I have a big problem with charging cirrhosis patients more. While I'm fine with charging McDonald's enthusiasts more, I have a big problem with charging heart disease patients more.

Harry Guerrilla said:
It makes less sense to create an undercover subsidy that makes one person pay more for another.

Why?

Harry Guerrilla said:
Then we should get away from insurance hiding people from the price structure, so that prices can be driven down.

How do you propose we do that? Make health insurance illegal? :confused:
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom