Health insurers offer to stop charging sick people more

Harry Guerrilla · Mar 24, 2009

Kandahar said:
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, drug 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.

What if all those diseases were caused by unhealthy lifestyle choices?
They should pay more certainly.

Kandahar said:
Why?

Because they don't have any problems.

Kandahar said:
How do you propose we do that? Make health insurance illegal?

Make insurance actual insurance instead of a prepayment plan that it is now.

rivrrat · Mar 24, 2009

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

Incorrect. One can make payments on medical bills just like any other bill.

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

You would be wrong. If they have to pay, they consider it a black mark on YOU.

Probably, because you chose to park it somewhere that it got stolen and damaged.

LOL In front of my home?

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.

Health insurance isn't a necessity either.

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.

ROFL My "salary" was approx 12k during that time. I told the hospital how much I could afford to pay them per month, and that's what I paid them. Simple as. They had someone call to work out payment arrangements, so we worked them out. I paid on it for several years.

When my grandfather had a quadruple bypass, my grandparents did the same thing.

rivrrat · Mar 24, 2009

WI Crippler said:
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."

Indeed. That would be much like our progressive tax system, for sure. I agree... I think we should punish health success as much as we punish financial success. It will make everyone strive to be healthy!!

Oh wait... :shock:

Kandahar · Mar 24, 2009

rivrrat said:
Incorrect. One can make payments on medical bills just like any other bill.

Ya if you get hit by a truck, they'll pay for your ER care. But no hospital is going to give someone a $500K bone marrow transplant in the hopes that they'll make monthly payments and eventually pay it off.

rivrrat said:
You would be wrong. If they have to pay, they consider it a black mark on YOU.

Either you have an unfair insurance company, or they found you at least partially at fault for the accident.

rivrrat said:
LOL In front of my home?

If that is a place where it's likely to be stolen or damaged, then yes.

rivrrat said:
ROFL My "salary" was approx 12k during that time. I told the hospital how much I could afford to pay them per month, and that's what I paid them. Simple as. They had someone call to work out payment arrangements, so we worked them out. I paid on it for several years.

Sorry, I don't believe you. The math does not add up. Even if you somehow managed to live on $6K per year and spent the other half of your salary paying off your medical bills for ten years, that's only $60K. That's chump change compared to what a lot of medical procedures cost. And you were fortunate that you were able to continue working at all; many sick people are not.

Kandahar · Mar 24, 2009

rivrrat said:
Indeed. That would be much like our progressive tax system, for sure. I agree... I think we should punish health success as much as we punish financial success. It will make everyone strive to be healthy!!

Oh wait... :shock:

Because there are hordes of people who would be thrilled at the prospect of getting a terminal illness, if only the government would pay for it. Anyone can see that our health care system is doing an excellent job incentivizing a healthy lifestyle, compared to other developed countries who are too stupid to follow our brilliant health care model. That explains why the United States is by far the healthiest country in the world. :doh

RightinNYC · Mar 24, 2009

Simply put, this shifts the burden of caring for sick people further onto healthy people. When the sick person in question is someone with Parkinson's or MS, that's not a problem to me. When the sick person in question is someone with diabetes/cancer/heart disease/etc. caused in part or whole by their own personal choices, I have a problem with that.

rivrrat's example above is perfectly apt. Car insurance is not a "necessity," but neither is health insurance.

rivrrat · Mar 24, 2009

Kandahar said:
Ya if you get hit by a truck, they'll pay for your ER care. But no hospital is going to give someone a $500K bone marrow transplant in the hopes that they'll make monthly payments and eventually pay it off.

And, why should they? It would be bad business, for certain. I'm certainly not entitled to their services.

Either you have an unfair insurance company, or they found you at least partially at fault for the accident.

Life isn't fair.

If that is a place where it's likely to be stolen or damaged, then yes.

LOL Yeah, okay. It was "my fault" my truck was stolen from my driveway. Much like it was "my fault" I have Grave's Disease.

Sorry, I don't believe you. The math does not add up. Even if you somehow managed to live on $6K per year and spent the other half of your salary paying off your medical bills for ten years, that's only $60K. That's chump change compared to what a lot of medical procedures cost. And you were fortunate that you were able to continue working at all; many sick people are not.

I didn't give you any math TO add up, so just what are you trying to add up? And fortunately for the rest of the world, the truth doesn't require your belief in order to be true.

Who said anything about being fortunate or not? Did I state that I wasn't fortunate? Did I state that some people are not fortunate? No, I didn't. What I did state was that I hope the auto insurance industry follows suit with this health insurance company so we can ALL have radically higher premiums no matter how healthy we are or how crappy we are at driving. It is, after all, the only fair thing to do.

Thing is, this insurance company will be out of business before too long. All the REALLY sick people will flock to them. And all of the healthy people will bail since they'll get much cheaper premiums elsewhere. The only way it could possibly work is if every single insurer did the same thing. And then, all that would do is force all of us to pay more. Not really sure how that's helping anything.

Grateful Heart · Mar 24, 2009

RightinNYC said:
Simply put, this shifts the burden of caring for sick people further onto healthy people. When the sick person in question is someone with Parkinson's or MS, that's not a problem to me. When the sick person in question is someone with diabetes/cancer/heart disease/etc. caused in part or whole by their own personal choices, I have a problem with that.

I think philosophically many of us would agree with that sentiment. As a practical matter, it would only place a level of ridiculous bureaucracy and red tape on an already over-taxed system.

For instance, if three patients present with lung cancer... the first a lifetime non-smoker, the second smoked occasionally in her early 20's, the third a lifetime 2-pack-a-day habit... which of those three should not be treated?

We could devise the same perplexing scenarios for just about any condition that might be 'lifestyle' related. Heart attack? Was it genetic predisposition, lack of exercise, or that extra 15 pounds the doctor warned you to take off for years!?!

I don't know anybody who leads a perfectly healthy lifestyle. Do you?

RightinNYC · Mar 24, 2009

rivrrat said:
Thing is, this insurance company will be out of business before too long. All the REALLY sick people will flock to them. And all of the healthy people will bail since they'll get much cheaper premiums elsewhere. The only way it could possibly work is if every single insurer did the same thing. And then, all that would do is force all of us to pay more. Not really sure how that's helping anything.

And that's the reason we have antitrust statutes, unless of course government decides to create a special exception for them.

RightinNYC · Mar 24, 2009

Grateful Heart said:
I think philosophically many of us would agree with that sentiment. As a practical matter, it would only place a level of ridiculous bureaucracy and red tape on an already over-taxed system.

For instance, if three patients present with lung cancer... the first a lifetime non-smoker, the second smoked occasionally in her early 20's, the third a lifetime 2-pack-a-day habit... which of those three should not be treated?

We could devise the same perplexing scenarios for just about any condition that might be 'lifestyle' related. Heart attack? Was it genetic predisposition, lack of exercise, or that extra 15 pounds the doctor warned you to take off for years!?!

I don't know anybody who leads a perfectly healthy lifestyle. Do you?

You're 100% right. I'm not saying it's practical to do a case-by-case analysis, I'm simply wary of a system where it will make it more likely that more healthy people will be subsidizing more people who are, to some degree, "sick" due to their own choices.

I don't think there really is a practical way to implement any of this stuff.

Kandahar · Mar 24, 2009

rivrrat said:
I didn't give you any math TO add up, so just what are you trying to add up?

You did. You said that your income was $12K, that it took you several years to pay off your debt (which I took to mean less than ten), and that it wasn't on anyone's dime but your own.

Your math simply does not add up. There is absolutely no way that you can support yourself on $12K per year while also paying off an expensive medical procedure. As I said, even if it took you ten years and you spent half your salary, that's a paltry $60K, which is NOTHING compared to some medical expenses.

rivrrat said:
Who said anything about being fortunate or not? Did I state that I wasn't fortunate? Did I state that some people are not fortunate? No, I didn't.

Then your anecdote is completely meaningless to the subject at hand. "I think we should solve world hunger by getting food from our refrigerators. That's what *I* do when I'm hungry. I wonder why Africans don't think of that." :roll:

rivrrat said:
What I did state was that I hope the auto insurance industry follows suit with this health insurance company so we can ALL have radically higher premiums no matter how healthy we are or how crappy we are at driving. It is, after all, the only fair thing to do.

Driving crappily is a choice and you can survive without a car. Getting leukemia is not a choice and you cannot survive without your health.

rivrrat said:
Thing is, this insurance company will be out of business before too long. All the REALLY sick people will flock to them. And all of the healthy people will bail since they'll get much cheaper premiums elsewhere. The only way it could possibly work is if every single insurer did the same thing. And then, all that would do is force all of us to pay more. Not really sure how that's helping anything.

You must've missed the part where they said that they were willing to do this IN EXCHANGE for a mandate that everyone purchase health insurance. Which is a good trade, and I hope the Obama Administration takes them up on this.

American · Mar 24, 2009

Kandahar said:
Insurers offer to stop charging sick people more

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.

Gee Kanadahar, they must have finally read your posts and listened. :roll:

:rofl

Kandahar · Mar 24, 2009

American said:
Gee Kanadahar, they must have finally read your posts and listened. :roll:

:rofl

Excellent contribution the discussion! Thanks for your insight. Bye bye now. :2wave:

American · Mar 24, 2009

Aww come on, where's your sense of humor. You got to admit it was funny the way you said it.

rivrrat · Mar 24, 2009

Kandahar said:
You did. You said that your income was $12K, that it took you several years to pay off your debt (which I took to mean less than ten), and that it wasn't on anyone's dime but your own.

Your math simply does not add up. There is absolutely no way that you can support yourself on $12K per year while also paying off an expensive medical procedure. As I said, even if it took you ten years and you spent half your salary, that's a paltry $60K, which is NOTHING compared to some medical expenses.

I never stated how much the expense was. Only that I couldn't afford it and I had to make payments on it for several years. Whether it was 5000 or 500000 is irrelevant when I couldn't afford $200. Fact was, I couldn't afford the procedure no matter how much it was. I made payments on it, just like I do my car that I couldn't afford to buy outright. And my grandparents are still making payment on my grandpa's bypass, 12 years later.

Then your anecdote is completely meaningless to the subject at hand. "I think we should solve world hunger by getting food from our refrigerators. That's what *I* do when I'm hungry. I wonder why Africans don't think of that." :roll:

No, it's not meaningless. No one is entitled to health care. NO ONE. It is a SERVICE that must be paid for. And, people that have expensive procedures done can make payments on them just like the rest of the country makes payments on things they can't afford outright.

Driving crappily is a choice and you can survive without a car. Getting leukemia is not a choice and you cannot survive without your health.

But you can survive without insurance, which is the point. And aside from that, no one survives forever, death is inevitable for all of us. It's just a matter of how long we can delay it.

You must've missed the part where they said that they were willing to do this IN EXCHANGE for a mandate that everyone purchase health insurance. Which is a good trade, and I hope the Obama Administration takes them up on this.

I did miss that, and that makes it even worse. I can only hope that no one takes that bull**** seriously. Hopefully there are enough people in the country that still respect individual freedom and responsibility enough to prevent the passing of some bill that only removes yet another choice from us. How anyone can favor passing laws that remove individual choices about their own life, much less their own HEALTH, is beyond me.

sazerac · Mar 24, 2009

There is a price we have to pay for being a compassionate people and not allowing fellow citizens to die because they can't pay the doctor.

But nobody should be allowed this free health care if they can afford to pay at least some money every month. If they can't pay $300/month but can pay $100/month then they should. It puts money into the health system rather than no money. And small businesses shouldn't be making the government pay for their sick employees.

We have a socialist health care system and always have. In years past the church nuns took care of the poor sick. The wealthy paid the Church in money and property. Then we had medicaid.

Kandahar · Mar 24, 2009

sazerac said:
But nobody should be allowed this free health care if they can afford to pay at least some money every month. If they can't pay $300/month but can pay $100/month then they should.

I completely agree with this.

sazerac said:
It puts money into the health system rather than no money. And small businesses shouldn't be making the government pay for their sick employees.

I completely disagree with this. A guy who owns a coffee shop can't afford to pay for his employees' chemotherapy anymore than they can. It would be wise to completely sever the tie between employment and health insurance once and for all.

Kandahar · Mar 24, 2009

rivrrat said:
I never stated how much the expense was. Only that I couldn't afford it and I had to make payments on it for several years. Whether it was 5000 or 500000 is irrelevant when I couldn't afford $200. Fact was, I couldn't afford the procedure no matter how much it was. I made payments on it, just like I do my car that I couldn't afford to buy outright. And my grandparents are still making payment on my grandpa's bypass, 12 years later.

You're right, you didn't say how much the expense was. So assuming that all of the facts you gave are true, one of two things must also be true: 1) Your medical costs were not really that expensive in the grand scheme of things, or 2) You didn't pay the full amount.

Either way, it wasn't on your dime, because you forced the hospital to give you a loan. That alone is a good enough reason to require you to have health insurance. The fact that you made payments later is honorable, but isn't necessarily the norm. In many cases, the bills are too high or the patients are too dead to pay it off. Or the patients just decide they don't want to bother.

rivrrat said:
No, it's not meaningless. No one is entitled to health care. NO ONE. It is a SERVICE that must be paid for. And, people that have expensive procedures done can make payments on them just like the rest of the country makes payments on things they can't afford outright.

Would it be fair to assume you negotiated your payments AFTER the fact? Suppose you could have studied the bills ahead of time and concluded that your future payments would be more than you could ever afford...would you have told the doctors not to treat you?

rivrrat said:
But you can survive without insurance, which is the point. And aside from that, no one survives forever, death is inevitable for all of us. It's just a matter of how long we can delay it.

I think most people would agree that delaying it longer is a good thing.

rivrrat said:
I did miss that, and that makes it even worse. I can only hope that no one takes that bull**** seriously. Hopefully there are enough people in the country that still respect individual freedom and responsibility enough to prevent the passing of some bill that only removes yet another choice from us. How anyone can favor passing laws that remove individual choices about their own life, much less their own HEALTH, is beyond me.

Forgive me if this sounds harsh, but you are just as much of a leech on the health care system as anyone, so you have no room to talk about "individual freedom and responsibility." You made the irresponsible decision not to carry health insurance, and then when that didn't work you made the hospital give you a loan to subsidize your irresponsibility. You are a textbook example of why we need the government to mandate that people must have health insurance.

rivrrat · Mar 24, 2009

Kandahar said:
Forgive me if this sounds harsh, but you are just as much of a leech on the health care system as anyone, so you have no room to talk about "individual freedom and responsibility." You made the irresponsible decision not to carry health insurance, and then when that didn't work you made the hospital give you a loan to subsidize your irresponsibility. You are a textbook example of why we need the government to mandate that people must have health insurance.

Bull ****ing ****. They performed a service, and I paid them for it. Leeching? I did no such thing.

Harry Guerrilla · Mar 24, 2009

sazerac said:
There is a price we have to pay for being a compassionate people and not allowing fellow citizens to die because they can't pay the doctor.

I'll choose when I can afford to be compassionate.

Not you or anyone else.

sazerac said:
But nobody should be allowed this free health care if they can afford to pay at least some money every month. If they can't pay $300/month but can pay $100/month then they should. It puts money into the health system rather than no money. And small businesses shouldn't be making the government pay for their sick employees.

I agree employers should get out of providing health insurance.

sazerac said:
We have a socialist health care system and always have. In years past the church nuns took care of the poor sick. The wealthy paid the Church in money and property. Then we had medicaid.

The church did that on their own, the wealthy did that on their own.

No one was forced to do that.

Medicaid is a sure sign of things to come, slowly doctors are restricting access to medicaid patients because it doesn't pay enough.

Medicare and medicaid are nothing to be proud of, those programs are helping cause the increase in insurance prices.

They charge more to people who pay for their own health care whether through insurance or with cash to make up for medicare and medicaid patients.

rivrrat said:
Life isn't fair.

This is the most relevant post in this thread.

Life is not ****ing fair, you can not save everyone.

If you think so please move to fairy fantasy world were no one gets sick.

Kandahar · Mar 24, 2009

rivrrat said:
Bull ****ing ****. They performed a service, and I paid them for it. Leeching? I did no such thing.

Did you or did you not force them to give you a loan, because you had no insurance and couldn't pay for the services at the time? That's better than forcing them to pay for it entirely...but still undercuts your arguments about personal responsibility.

The responsible thing to do was to carry insurance so that you were able to pay for the services at the time they were rendered. How would you like it if your customer told you that it was going to be several years before you got your money?

rivrrat · Mar 24, 2009

Kandahar said:
Did you or did you not force them to give you a loan, because you had no insurance and couldn't pay for the services at the time? That's better than forcing them to pay for it entirely...but still undercuts your arguments about personal responsibility.

Incorrect. I received no "loan" from them. They performed a service and I paid them, in it's entirety. That, in no way, undercuts any argument for personal responsibility. It is the epitome of personal responsibility. They didn't HAVE to service me. They CHOSE to, knowing I didn't have insurance. And I, being the personally responsible person I am, paid them for it fully.

The responsible thing to do was to carry insurance so that you were able to pay for the services at the time they were rendered. How would you like it if your customer told you that it was going to be several years before you got your money?

LOL I'd be fine with having thousands of people making me monthly payments. Who the **** wouldn't?

If I wasn't fine with it, I wouldn't be in the business of performing a service that can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per procedure. If I wasn't fine with it, I would refuse to perform said service for someone who didn't have insurance.

sazerac · Mar 24, 2009

Harry Guerrilla said:
I'll choose when I can afford to be compassionate.

Not you or anyone else.

You'll choose? How are you going to do that? You live in a civilized country that takes care of it's sick citizens if they have no money.

Harry Guerrilla · Mar 24, 2009

sazerac said:
You'll choose? How are you going to do that? You live in a civilized country that takes care of it's sick citizens if they have no money.

I have private insurance but at the same time I'm classified as the working poor.

Why should the working poor pay for sick people?

I think it is more uncivilized for people to force other people to do things they may not want to.

Kandahar · Mar 24, 2009

rivrrat said:
Incorrect. I received no "loan" from them.

You accrued a financial obligation from someone who performed a service for you. You did not immediately pay it off, and instead paid it off gradually, month by month.

How is that not a loan?

rivrrat said:
They performed a service and I paid them, in it's entirety. That, in no way, undercuts any argument for personal responsibility. It is the epitome of personal responsibility. They didn't HAVE to service me. They CHOSE to, knowing I didn't have insurance. And I, being the personally responsible person I am, paid them for it fully.

In other words, you depended on the fact that their sympathy for your situation would overcome their business senses. And how exactly does always relying on the kindness of strangers epitomize personal responsibility?

Your anecdote has no relevance to this discussion (at least not for the point you're trying to make), because you did NOT do the responsible thing. You relied on the hospital to help you in spite of their business interests; after all, they would have little reason to believe that letting you pay month-by-month would be a good investment. Your example does not help your argument; on the contrary, it makes it laughable when you call for personal responsibility and the freedom to not have to pay for others' medical expenses.

rivrrat said:
LOL I'd be fine with having thousands of people making me monthly payments. Who the **** wouldn't?

I'd rather just have the money now. I think most wise businessmen would.

Health insurers offer to stop charging sick people more

Goddess of Bacon

Goddess of Bacon

Enemy Combatant

Enemy Combatant

Girthless

Goddess of Bacon

Well-known member

Girthless

Girthless

Enemy Combatant

Trump Grump Whisperer

Enemy Combatant

Trump Grump Whisperer

Goddess of Bacon

Enemy Combatant

Enemy Combatant

Goddess of Bacon

Enemy Combatant

Goddess of Bacon

Enemy Combatant