• 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!

This is why health insurance and healthcare in general are so expensive

Surrealistik said:
To nearly the extent that it constitutes the vast majority of the cost differential?

Absolutely impossible.

The US absolutely does have high incidents rates of both, and they do explain _some_ of that differential, but not nearly to the extent it comes anywhere close to accounting for more than a doubling in per capita costs vis a vis other developed countries. For example, obesity and diabetes prevalence in the US are each only about 5% greater as a % of the population than in Australia, and yet its per capita costs are more than double; 113% higher. This is clearly and predominantly a systemic issues rather than the fault of individuals. Sure, the state of general fitness in the country could use substantial improvement, but let's put the majority of the blame where it actually lies, rather than it's just because people are lazy and indolent that the American healthcare is bar the most costly and inefficient in the world. I apologize for the incisive tone, but it legitimately bothers me when people try to imply (or outright state) that the fault is not with the system but the people victimized by it.
Click to expand...

Conversely, it bothers me when adult citizens are broadly and generally characterized as victims.
 
Neomalthusian said:
Conversely, it bothers me when adult citizens are broadly and generally characterized as victims.
Click to expand...

I would indeed consider most Americans victims of special interests that have heavily entrenched, greatly disproportionate power in government which has pernicious effects ranging from egregious misallocation of public funds to the direct detriment of their health as is plain and apparent when we review the structural failings of the US health system.
 
Surrealistik said:
I would indeed consider most Americans victims
Click to expand...

Yeah that's apparent from your posts.

of special interests that have heavily entrenched, greatly disproportionate power in government which has pernicious effects ranging from egregious misallocation of public funds to the direct detriment of their health as is plain and apparent when we review the structural failings of the US health system.
Click to expand...

Verbose.

Multiple choice question for you: If someone is struggling, it must be someone or something else's "fault":

Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Neutral
Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree
 
Neomalthusian said:
Yeah that's apparent from your posts.
Click to expand...

It's good to know that you have basic reading comprehension.

Verbose.
Click to expand...

You mean accurate.

It is hard to overestimate how badly the average American is ****ed by said special interests.

Multiple choice question for you: If someone is struggling, it must be someone or something else's "fault":

Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Neutral
Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree
Click to expand...

You're being silly; it depends on the circumstances/context obviously.
 
Surrealistik said:
It's good to know that you have basic reading comprehension.

You mean accurate.

It is hard to overestimate how badly the average American is ****ed by said special interests.
Click to expand...

It's hard to overestimate how petulant and victim-mentality-riddled the American left wing is. Everyone is somehow a victim. The wailing about this is incessant. The far left works very hard to portray everyone as a victim of rich and powerful people. Anything that appears to tie back to an individual's own behaviors and decisions is blasted with a litany of presumptive excuses and reasons why it's actually something else's "fault."

You're being silly; it depends on the circumstances/context obviously.
Click to expand...

Oh, it does now? Apparently it doesn't, given you just got done broadly characterizing adult citizens (most) as victims.
 
Neomalthusian said:
It's hard to overestimate how petulant and victim-mentality-riddled the American left wing is. Everyone is somehow a victim. The wailing about this is incessant. The far left works very hard to portray everyone as a victim of rich and powerful people. Anything that appears to tie back to an individual's own behaviors and decisions is blasted with a litany of presumptive excuses and reasons why it's actually something else's "fault."

Oh, it does now? Apparently it doesn't, given you just got done broadly characterizing adult citizens (most) as victims.
Click to expand...

Most people in America are indeed victims of rich and powerful people to some extent given the huge, broadbased impact they have on political spending, law, regulations, taxation and all the things that stem from these; however, being a victim doesn't absolve you of individual responsibility; these things aren't mutually exclusive. I was very clear, for example, that though majoritarian blame lies with the system and those who propagate/uphold it (and it clearly does), individual habits and lack of fitness are indeed contributors to the state of US healthcare; this is not at all difficult to understand barring either idiocy or willful disingenuity: which is it in your case?
 
Surrealistik said:
Most people in America are indeed victims of rich and powerful people to some extent given the huge, broadbased impact they have on political spending, law, regulations, taxation and all the things that stem from these; however, being a victim doesn't absolve you of individual responsibility; these things aren't mutually exclusive. I was very clear, for example, that though majoritarian blame lies with the system and those who propagate/uphold it (and it clearly does), individual habits and lack of fitness are indeed contributors to the state of US healthcare; this is not at all difficult to understand barring either idiocy or willful disingenuity: which is it in your case?
Click to expand...

You're still being verbose and spouting noise. SouthernDemocrat was not unreasonably hostile toward people who don't exercise and have poor health habits. I don't even see where he suggested lack of exercise accounts for all of the cost difference between the U.S. and other countries, which you implied he was arguing.

You got flustered by his observation of Americans' apparent lack of will to exercise and instead tried to characterize them broadly as victims of the rich. If you're acknowledging that people aren't exercising and that this adds to American health care costs if anything, and acknowledge people do have some responsibility over their own lives, then nothing SouthernDemocrat has said here should perturb you so much.

No one interested in this thread topic is likely to be very interested in your broad-brushed conspiracy rants about the rich and powerful, either.
 
Neomalthusian said:
You're still being verbose and spouting noise. SouthernDemocrat was not unreasonably hostile toward people who don't exercise and have poor health habits. I don't even see where he suggested lack of exercise accounts for all of the cost difference between the U.S. and other countries, which you implied he was arguing.

You got flustered by his observation of Americans' apparent lack of will to exercise and instead tried to characterize them broadly as victims of the rich. If you're acknowledging that people aren't exercising and that this adds to American health care costs if anything, and acknowledge people do have some responsibility over their own lives, then nothing SouthernDemocrat has said here should perturb you so much.
Click to expand...

What noise/verbosity? You made a characteristically ridiculous statement and I rebuffed it.

The fact that he identifies or implies that a lack of exercise at the individual level as _the_ reason healthcare is so ludicrously expensive in the States is absolutely cause for objection; the title of the thread is literally called This is why health insurance and healthcare in general are so expensive

He then goes on to 'confirm' his point with anecdote.

Personally I don't have a problem with pointing out the very real fitness gap, but the implication of the post, especially since it lacks any mention of the healthcare system's systemic failings whatsoever and seems to place majority or exclusive onus on individuals, is problematic.


No one interested in this thread topic is likely to be very interested in your broad-brushed conspiracy rants about the rich and powerful, either.
Click to expand...

What conspiracy? https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

Legalized, de facto corruption/bribery is one of the worst kept secrets in the country.
 
Last edited:
Neomalthusian said:
No, you're assuming the goal is to make everyone healthy by charging them differential rates for insurance coverage. between people whose risk of needing payout is significantly higher, which has an even deeper and more fundamentally important goal of preventing adverse selection.
Click to expand...
\

BWAAAAHHHH.. that's funny. I am always amazed at how well insurance companies have brainwashed folks. Look.. the difference between the premium of a person driving a Porsche,, and the premium of someone driving a Kia .. has NOTHING to do with fairness or relative risk.

think about it. Who is more likely to have an expensive accident? Kill a person.. have a roll over accident? The young man with no experience driving a kia.. or a middle aged successful businessman driving that Porsche? I guarantee you that kia drivers.. in general are at a higher risk because they problem represent drivers with less financial wherewithal.. which probably means they are younger and have less driving experience. OR they are much older.. and have less income and now have become slow and have slower reaction time, poorer vision etc.

Premiums are NOT set by costs.. they are set by what the market will bear.. demand!. The real reason that the Porsche driver pays more? BECASUE HE CAN and HE IS WILLING to pay more. The insurance company can get more money out of him because HE HAS THE MONEY TO BUY A PORSCHE. The insurance company simply cannot gouge the Kia driver that much.. because they don't have the finances..

You're not being consistent. Insurance companies are allowed to charge smokers more than non-smokers, and older people more than younger people. There are completely rational reasons for this, both on the consumer side as well as the insurer side. You wouldn't be able to get low-risk people to buy the coverage if you couldn't vary the rates whatsoever according to risk.
Click to expand...

BWWWAHHHH.. that's funny. Listen.. there really is NO RATIONAL reason to charge smokers more than non smokers. The guy that admits he smokes a pack a week? He is certainly no more risk than the guy who has high cholesterol, is sedentary, and is diabetic on top of that. The guy that's 50 who has been healthy his whole life? He has less risk than the fellow that is 30 and has acute liver problems because of his alcoholism.

Look you said the reason they do this.. its not about being fair.. its not about risk..its not about cost..

Its this..

You wouldn't be able to get low-risk people to buy the coverage if you couldn't vary the rates whatsoever according to risk
Click to expand...

HA.. exactly.. you need the ILLUSION that you are paying based on risk. that helps you pay more for coverage...

Think about this.. IF insurance companies charged BASED ON RISK.. then the WOULD NEVER MAKE A PROFIT. Because their prices would be set by the actual costs accrued. But they are not.. insurance companies make money hand over fist. And that's because insurance premiums ARE NOT set by cost.. they are set by demand.. what people are willing to pay. (which is more than cost.. otherwise no profit).

So when they hit that non smoker with a premium bill. They say.. we are giving you a discount because you are so healthy. "well then.. if I get a discount.. then I will pay that premium".

Its no different when a store posts a "sale".. and people run to buy things that they don't need because its "a good deal". Pretty much.. its the same trick.

But you said morality can't be legislated. Of course it can, at least to the degree that many immoral behaviors are illegal
Click to expand...

no it can't. If that were true. then people would not say commit murder. since its illegal.

Just because speed limits don't prevent all cases of speeding doesn't mean we can't regulate speed limits. Of course we can, and we do.
Click to expand...

Actually we don't. A study in Montana where they removed speed limits showed that when speed limits were removed. The average rate of speed barely increased. And interestingly accidents I believe went DOWN. (I might be wrong on that).

The upshot is.. people were not regulated by the government. If they were.. then when the speed limit was removed... their speed should have shot up tremendously.. but it didn;t.. and that's because people in general are inherently responsible.

Consider the extremes: insurance that charges the same premiums for all, zero regard to differences in the individual insured's risk profiles. Why doesn't this work in the real world?
Click to expand...

that's exactly how it works in the real world. the difference you see in premiums is more a function of demand.. than on risk.

think for a moment.. most private insurance is through the workplace. Every employee pretty much pays the same for the same policy.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Behavioral economics 101: It's not the cost of cigarettes that discourages people from smoking, its the cost of cigarettes relative to what they were that discourages people from smoking. In much of Europe, people are used to spending more for consumer goods and so on, thus you have to raise the price of something by more than you would here to get the same impact in terms of behavioral modification.
Click to expand...

That doesn't work anymore when you factor in the real cost baseline, against how much they hiked it up. Even by European cost standards, the increase was insane. A pack costs enough to feed you for a week -- even on imported food.

Yet they still smoke twice as much as we do.

Punishing addicts doesn't work. It's never worked. It never will.
 
Last edited:
Surrealistik said:
Yes, I'm sure it's primarily because people are all hella buff lifters and tireless aerobics masters in other developed countries that their health care costs per capita are half the US' or less and that your anecdote is evidence as opposed to y'know, a patently ludicrous and absurdly inefficient structuring of the health system riddled with perverse incentives that puts private profit before people?
Click to expand...

Actually yes.. americans are way more sedentary, and are overall more obese than other countries and this most definitely explains a good portion of the different in healthcare costs.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Having spoken to a lot of people who have done that thing where they quit after a month, I'd say there's two big problems.

One is that a lot of people don't know how to start doing exercise. They attack it way too quickly, sometimes wind up injuring themselves, or become discouraged by how little they can do before they're tapped out. Finding a way to reach people about how to go from very low fitness, to better fitness, in a way that is safe and maintainable might help. When I was getting back in shape after some injuries and a terrible sedentary office job, I started with a month of just bodyweight exercises before I went anywhere near anything more intense.

Two is, quite frankly, gym culture is pretty terrible in some places. I got a pass because I'm thin (because obviously skinny = healthy, right? :roll:). But I have seen and heard lots of crap aimed at overweight people at the gym. A lot of them get stared at, or hear snickers, or told that they are what the resident gym bro doesn't want to look like. I've seen people take pictures of them.

I'd say one of the worst is when said gym bros tell them they're "not trying hard enough." They have no idea what baseline that person is starting from -- if, on top of being overweight, they have an injury, or some sort of illness, or whatever else, that may impact how hard they can go, or warrant starting out from a conservative position and working their way up. We've had some DP'ers with diabetes share how sick they've gotten from doing what they thought was a normal workout, but turned out to be too much for their health issues. And Gym Bro doesn't know any of that when he's accusing a newbie of "not trying hard enough."
Click to expand...

This is absolutely true.

If many communities developed wellness centers, that were designed for people that had trouble exercising..

Rather than having gyms that are designed around a bodybuilding philosophy.. our communities would be far healthier.

Particularly when you consider the costs of exercise and being thin. ITs and interesting flip flop in our culture. At one time.. you could tell a poor person because they were thin. they had to work a physical job and food was scarce.

now.. you can tell a rich person.. because they are more likely to be thin. Because they can afford more nutritious food, gyms etc.
 
jaeger19 said:
Actually yes.. americans are way more sedentary, and are overall more obese than other countries and this most definitely explains a good portion of the different in healthcare costs.
Click to expand...

Except a 5% differential with respect to Australia in terms of obesity and diabetes as I mentioned can't possibly explain US per capita healthcare costs being a ridiculous 113% higher.
 
jaeger19 said:
\

BWAAAAHHHH.. that's funny. I am always amazed at how well insurance companies have brainwashed folks. Look.. the difference between the premium of a person driving a Porsche,, and the premium of someone driving a Kia .. has NOTHING to do with fairness or relative risk.

think about it. Who is more likely to have an expensive accident? Kill a person.. have a roll over accident? The young man with no experience driving a kia.. or a middle aged successful businessman driving that Porsche?
Click to expand...

My comparison was between car types, not driving experience or business success, and between sports cars and compact and mid-size consumer cars, the sports cars are more likely to have accidents and fatalities.

I guarantee you that kia drivers.. in general are at a higher risk because they problem represent drivers with less financial wherewithal..
Click to expand...

That would require evidence. And from an insurance perspective, risk of fatality or accident is not the only consideration. Risk of higher payout drives the cost. The premiums are different because of the different risk profiles.

Premiums are NOT set by costs.. they are set by what the market will bear.. demand!.
Click to expand...

They vary based on cost because demand derives from cost. Adverse selection occurs, meaning demand for the insurance product by those with the lowest risk goes down because the coverage isn't worth the price to them.

The real reason that the Porsche driver pays more? BECASUE HE CAN and HE IS WILLING to pay more. The insurance company can get more money out of him because HE HAS THE MONEY TO BUY A PORSCHE.

The insurance company simply cannot gouge the Kia driver that much.. because they don't have the finances..
Click to expand...

Which means they won't buy the insurance, which causes adverse selection. This is why premium rates have to vary somewhat.

BWWWAHHHH.. that's funny. Listen.. there really is NO RATIONAL reason to charge smokers more than non smokers. The guy that admits he smokes a pack a week? He is certainly no more risk than the guy who has high cholesterol, is sedentary, and is diabetic on top of that. The guy that's 50 who has been healthy his whole life? He has less risk than the fellow that is 30 and has acute liver problems because of his alcoholism.
Click to expand...

If you can't understand the rational reasons insurance companies need to be able to vary their rates a little, then you don't comprehend or acknowledge adverse selection. If risk profiles among the insured vary significantly, but premiums don't vary at all accordingly, the lowest risk customers will opt out. This leaves higher concentrations of higher-risk people in the pool, requiring the rates to go up. This can cause even more to opt out, and so forth.

Look you said the reason they do this.. its not about being fair.. its not about risk..its not about cost..

Its this..

HA.. exactly.. you need the ILLUSION that you are paying based on risk. that helps you pay more for coverage...
Click to expand...

If what you pay varies somewhat according to your risk, then it's not an illusion. The cost varies somewhat according to risk. You're basically coming full circle to agreeing with what I've said, just in a disagreeable and argumentative tone.

Think about this.. IF insurance companies charged BASED ON RISK.. then the WOULD NEVER MAKE A PROFIT.
Click to expand...

Why not? They charge higher risk people more and lower risk people less. As long as the total premium revenue from those charges exceed payouts and operational costs, they've profited.

Because their prices would be set by the actual costs accrued. But they are not.. insurance companies make money hand over fist. And that's because insurance premiums ARE NOT set by cost.. they are set by demand.. what people are willing to pay. (which is more than cost.. otherwise no profit).

So when they hit that non smoker with a premium bill. They say.. we are giving you a discount because you are so healthy. "well then.. if I get a discount.. then I will pay that premium".

Its no different when a store posts a "sale".. and people run to buy things that they don't need because its "a good deal". Pretty much.. its the same trick.
Click to expand...

You're arguing yourself into circles. If you want to call it a trick, that's fine, I don't care. They need to vary premiums somewhat according to risk in order to avoid adverse selection. You've basically agreed.

think for a moment.. most private insurance is through the workplace. Every employee pretty much pays the same for the same policy.
Click to expand...

That's very true and I think that's part of our overall health care cost problem in this country.
 
Surrealistik said:
Except a 5% differential with respect to Australia in terms of obesity and diabetes as I mentioned can't possibly explain US per capita healthcare costs being a ridiculous 113% higher.
Click to expand...

Well I think its a bit more complicated than that. We have a higher percentage of adults that are overweight as well. For example, lets say that the percentage of overweight and obese adults in the United States versus Australia translates to the average American adult being ten years younger than the average Australian is before they become clinically overweight. That is a huge difference in health issues over time.

Now, don't get me wrong, there is no doubt that our health care system is more expensive than other industrialized nations for most drugs and procedures. I am not saying that is not a big problem. However, that doesn't then also give us a free pass on our poor individual health and the ramifications of that as well.
 
Surrealistik said:
Except a 5% differential with respect to Australia in terms of obesity and diabetes as I mentioned can't possibly explain US per capita healthcare costs being a ridiculous 113% higher.
Click to expand...

Throw in sedentary lifestyle. Stress. Less vacations, etc.. it explains a lot.
 
jaeger19 said:
Throw in sedentary lifestyle. Stress. Less vacations, etc.. it explains a lot.
Click to expand...

The consequences of a sedentary lifestyle are largely reflected in those obesity and diabetes rates. The impact of stress/less vacations is difficult to quantify and in the case of the former hard to establish reliable quantification for, but again, cumulatively I don't see it accounting for a more than doubling of per capita costs; a substantial chunk perhaps, but nowhere near that level of difference.

SouthernDemocrat said:
Well I think its a bit more complicated than that. We have a higher percentage of adults that are overweight as well. For example, lets say that the percentage of overweight and obese adults in the United States versus Australia translates to the average American adult being ten years younger than the average Australian is before they become clinically overweight. That is a huge difference in health issues over time.

Now, don't get me wrong, there is no doubt that our health care system is more expensive than other industrialized nations for most drugs and procedures. I am not saying that is not a big problem. However, that doesn't then also give us a free pass on our poor individual health and the ramifications of that as well.
Click to expand...

Sure the US has more obesity on all levels, but the bottom line only 5% more of the overall population is obese vs the Australians; it basically doesn't matter how you slice that figure, it can't account for the spending differential.

Also I agree, personal fitness is important and preventative elements/care need to be taken more seriously, including at the individual level; I just want to be clear that the majoritarian cause of these ridiculous per capita costs is the system, rather than its users.
 
Neomalthusian said:
My comparison was between car types, not driving experience or business success, and between sports cars and compact and mid-size consumer cars, the sports cars are more likely to have accidents and fatalities.

.
Click to expand...

Actually no.. in all likelihood the sports car ARE NOT more likely to have accidents and fatalities. As I pointed out.. who is more likely to have a 90,000 dollar Porsche? A freshly licensed high school teenager.. or a seasoned middle aged driver?

Who is more likely to be in an accident?

That would require evidence. And from an insurance perspective, risk of fatality or accident is not the only consideration. Risk of higher payout drives the cost. The premiums are different because of the different risk profiles.
Click to expand...

And I submit that the difference in risk is from the younger inexperienced driver driving the kia.

If you can't understand the rational reasons insurance companies need to be able to vary their rates a little, then you don't comprehend or acknowledge adverse selection. If risk profiles among the insured vary significantly, but premiums don't vary at all accordingly, the lowest risk customers will opt out. This leaves higher concentrations of higher-risk people in the pool, requiring the rates to go up. This can cause even more to opt out, and so forth.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that you don't understand that your argument isn't really rational.

You are saying that if risk profiles among the insured vary but premiums don't vary at all then the lowest risk customers will opt out.

But that's not rational really. Lets say a insurance charges everyone equally.. and the premium is 200 dollars.

Then another insurance charges the highest risk 300 dollars.. but then charges the lower risk 250.

You are saying that people from the first insurance.. will go to the more expensive insurance because they get charged less than the more expensive people.

Not happening. Remember.. the price is not set by cost. Its set by demand.

Look.. we DID exactly what you are suggesting for years.. .healthcare insurance did not just start when Obama became president. since the 1990's individual health insurance got priced by risk. And what happened?.. the youngest opted to not have insurance..and premiums skyrocketed year after year. More people with chronic conditions got priced out and ended up getting more expensive healthcare in the ER because they were uninsured.. and that cost was passed on to insurance companies.

If what you pay varies somewhat according to your risk, then it's not an illusion
Click to expand...

The question is whether what you pay is REALLY based on your risk.. or its really based on demand and profit. YOU seem to think its really based on risk and so having different premiums based on risk is a NECESSARY function of insurance. And I point out.. its not. in fact.. its inherently inaccurate.. the 20 year old smoker.. vs 20 year old with juvenile diabetes, heart disease and obese.

the 20 year old motorcycle jumper vs the 30 year old accountant.

We already had a system that had different premiums in the individual market.. and what happened? Fewer people insured.. particularly young healthy people (your adverse selection). More people who were priced out because of chronic conditions using the emergency rooms, and having more expensive ailments because of lack of preventative healthcare due to being uninsured. And skyrocketing premiums.

That's very true and I think that's part of our overall health care cost problem in this country.
Click to expand...

and you would be wrong. The issue with employer coverage is not because "every employee pretty much pays the same".

the problem with employer coverage is that employers can pay more for that coverage than a person on their own..and thus the insurance company can gouge them more.
 
Surrealistik said:
The consequences of a sedentary lifestyle are largely reflected in those obesity and diabetes rates. The impact of stress/less vacations is difficult to quantify and in the case of the former hard to establish reliable quantification for, but again, cumulatively I don't see it accounting for a more than doubling of per capita costs; a substantial chunk perhaps, but nowhere near that level of difference.
QUOTE]
Click to expand...

Well sedentary also reflects cardiac status, blood pressure, etc. but good.. at least we got to its a substantial chunk. Then you look at things like the shifting of costs from the private sector to the public sector. For example, In America our doctors pay for their education by recouping it in their charges. Other countries have public education for physicians.. and other providers.. so that the cost is shifted to education.

Then you have differences in what Australia insurance pays for.. and what it does not. etc.

Also I agree, personal fitness is important and preventative elements/care need to be taken more seriously, including at the individual level; I just want to be clear that the majoritarian cause of these ridiculous per capita costs is the system, rather than its users
Click to expand...

Actually.. its pretty clear that most of it is not the system. Before you go on the rant about "profit over patients".. Australia has a pretty good mix of private hospitals/providers and insurances.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
jaeger19 said:
Actually no.. in all likelihood the sports car ARE NOT more likely to have accidents and fatalities. As I pointed out.. who is more likely to have a 90,000 dollar Porsche? A freshly licensed high school teenager.. or a seasoned middle aged driver?

Who is more likely to be in an accident?

And I submit that the difference in risk is from the younger inexperienced driver driving the kia.
Click to expand...

There is actual data on this, and it doesn't support what your personal hypothesis.

It seems to me that you don't understand that your argument isn't really rational.

You are saying that if risk profiles among the insured vary but premiums don't vary at all
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying premiums do vary by risk, which is rational, fair and even necessary from an insurance business standpoint.

then the lowest risk customers will opt out.
Click to expand...

The lowest risk insurance customers will opt out when they deem the coverage to not be worth the premiums. Do you understand what an insurance death spiral is? Do you acknowledge there is a very real potential for it to happen?

http://www.nber.org/chapters/c9822.pdf

But that's not rational really.
Click to expand...

Of course it's rational.

Lets say a insurance charges everyone equally.. and the premium is 200 dollars.

Then another insurance charges the highest risk 300 dollars.. but then charges the lower risk 250.

You are saying that people from the first insurance.. will go to the more expensive insurance because they get charged less than the more expensive people.
Click to expand...

No, I'm probably not saying anything of the sort. Your example is barely coherent.

It's not even comprehensible why you're arguing with me. Risks among the insured vary, as do premiums according to those risks. And when I say "risk," I mean the odds of an insurable event happening mixed with the size of the necessary payout if it does. In the example of Porsche drivers, the combination of the odds of an accident combined with the cost of the payout puts Porsches at significantly higher risk profile from the insurance company's perspective than a Kia drivers, which is why they charge the Porsche driver more. This isn't just because they can, it's because lower risk people will be less likely to choose to buy that insurance if their premiums are inflated to cover significantly higher risk policyholders. None of this is in serious doubt or dispute, nor is it irrational, nor is it controversial.

Your comments on this have been randomly from the top of your own head, shooting from the hip.
 
Neomalthusian said:
There is actual data on this, and it doesn't support what your personal hypothesis.
.
Click to expand...

hmm..yes there are statistics on this.

The risk of motor vehicle crashes is higher among 16-19-year-olds than among any other age group. In fact, per mile driven, teen drivers ages 16 to 19 are nearly three times more likely than drivers aged 20 and older to be in a fatal crash.2
Click to expand...

https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/teen_drivers/teendrivers_factsheet.html

No, I'm saying premiums do vary by risk, which is rational, fair and even necessary from an insurance business standpoint.
Click to expand...

Right.. and they don't actually. As I point out. There are too many variables.

The lowest risk insurance customers will opt out when they deem the coverage to not be worth the premiums. Do you understand what an insurance death spiral is? Do you acknowledge there is a very real potential for it to happen?
Click to expand...

Sure.. but you keep changing the goal posts. ANY customer will opt out when the deem coverage is not worth the premiums. What you have been saying that its not the overall premium that matters.. its whether they pay more, or the same as some other fellow that they somehow deem more risky.

And that's a different argument.

It's not even comprehensible why you're arguing with me. Risks among the insured vary, as do premiums according to those risks. And when I say "risk," I mean the odds of an insurable event happening mixed with the size of the necessary payout if it does. In the example of Porsche drivers, the combination of the odds of an accident combined with the cost of the payout puts Porsches at significantly higher risk profile from the insurance company's perspective than a Kia drivers, which is why they charge the Porsche driver more
Click to expand...
.

Except the reality is that its NOT why they charge the Porsche driver more. The charge the Porsche driver more because he can AFFORD to pay more.. and likely has more demand as well.

This isn't just because they can, it's because lower risk people will be less likely to choose to buy that insurance if their premiums are inflated to cover significantly higher risk policyholders. None of this is in serious doubt or dispute, nor is it irrational, nor is it controversial.
Click to expand...

Yep it is. Lower risk people are ALWAYS inflated in order to cover significantly higher risk policyholders.. its HOW INSURANCE WORKS.

Your comments on this have been randomly from the top of your own head, shooting from the hip.
Click to expand...

Far from it. Its from a fundamental understanding of insurance really works.
 
There are lots of ways to reduce the health insurance expenses. Pick the right insurance policy, Shop around for medication, Ask whether tests, prescriptions or procedures are really necessary, Pick the right facility, Practice preventive care, Know what your health insurance policy covers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom