• 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!

When should health insurance cost more for someone?

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


  • Total voters
    33
True, but one chooses to smoke or engage in a lifestyle that will result in being overweight.



Or has a low metabolism.

I know so many people that eat a lot of junk and drink a lot of beer and with no exercise are skinny.
 
Instead of whining, smokers should stop smoking... Disgusting habit...

It may be a disgusting habit to you, but let's not pretend it's a costly habit to society when it's effectively subsidizing health care for the rest of us.
 
Some of these things are impossible to prove, others cannot be weighed.
I am against insurance as I find it immoral that "business" can make so much money from one's misfortunes. .
So, its try having no insurance and force people to be responsible for their health.....this sounds good..
But, we have cancer, which strikes anyone.
Responsibility is out of the equation.
And accidents...imagine superman Steve Reeve's medical costs.
Exactly how to do the developed nations handle this dilemma?
Germany?
Canada?
France?
Google?
 
Or has a low metabolism.

I know so many people that eat a lot of junk and drink a lot of beer and with no exercise are skinny.

You can exercise to raise your metabolism, or just realize that fact and adjust your caloric intake accordingly...
 
If we can smooth out the cost of health insurance over the course of a person's life, instead of cramming nearly the entire cost into the last 10-20 years, it will enable people to plan for their financial futures much more effectively by eliminating a major source of financial uncertainty.
I really dont know how that addresses what I asked.

For most people, most of their costs come in their last 20-odd years. There's no real way to change that.
 
They should charge everyone the same price.

They should make the categories based on what kind of coverage you want.

Something like:

1. Full coverage
2. 50/50 or something like that.
3. Catastrophic emergencies


Not exactly but maybe you get the idea.

The government should stay the hell out of it though.

Also, people should try to shop around and negotiate with doctors and learn how much it really costs.

The government and insurance companies make care more expensive than it really is.

They aren't going to charge everyone the same price unless the government forces them to do so. What possible reason would they have to do so on their own?
 
That's exactly what insurance is, Goobie. Exactly.
No... insurance is a means to aggregate cost across a number of people.
 
I really dont know how that addresses what I asked.

A direct answer to your question doesn't address what you asked? What exactly did you find unclear or confusing about my response?

Goobieman said:
For most people, most of their costs come in their last 20-odd years. There's no real way to change that.

Yes there is. We can smooth out the cost of insurance by mandating that insurers charge old and young the same price (or at least in the same ballpark). People will pay more than the market says they should when they're younger, and less than the market says they should when they're older. For most people who live normal lifespans, this will balance out over the course of their lives. This means that people will be more financially secure and better able to plan for their retirement, their kids' college, and/or their kids' inheritance because they won't have the uncertainty associated with end-of-life health care costs hanging over their head.
 
Last edited:
They should charge everyone the same price.
If that were the case and the insurance companies could only charge one price for a given level of coverage, they will increase the premiums for young/healthy people to make up for the loss of premiums for the old/sick people.

You'll be OK with that?
How do you sell that to the young/healthy people?
 
Umm yes there is. By smoothing out the cost of insurance by charging old and young the same price (or at least close to the same price)...You know, the very thing that we were TALKING about?

That doesn't change their medical costs. That just artificially changes the scheme of insurance premiums.
 
A direct answer to your question doesn't address what you asked?
Your asnswer didnt address the question. You can try to rephrase your asnwer if you like.

Yes there is. We can smooth out the cost of insurance by mandating that insurers charge old and young the same price (or at least in the same ballpark).
How does that change the fact that most medical costs for most people are incurred in their last ~20 years?
 
That doesn't change their medical costs. That just artificially changes the scheme of insurance premiums.

How does that change the fact that most medical costs for most people are incurred in their last ~20 years?

It doesn't. It just changes when they're paying for it. They'll pay more when they're younger than the market dictates, and less when they're older. Unless they live an abnormally short or long lifespan, it will approximately balance out over the course of their lives.

You both seem to be laboring under the assumption that I share your opinion that risks beyond a person's control (e.g. age) should be factored into the cost of their premiums, and/or that I share your opinion that higher medical costs should equal higher premiums (which defeats the whole purpose of insurance). I don't.
 
Last edited:
You both seem to be laboring under the assumption that I share your opinion that risks beyond a person's control (e.g. age) should be factored into the cost of their premiums, and/or that I share your opinion that higher medical costs should equal higher premiums (which defeats the whole purpose of insurance). I don't.

I believe, between the two of us, there's only one person "laboring under assumptions" about the other person, and it's not I. But, you show considerable skill at obfuscation and deflection away from mathematical and physical fact.
 
It doesn't. It just changes when they're paying for it
Well then - your response doesnt address my pont. Just like I said.

And then, as I said before:

If that were the case and the insurance companies could only charge one price for a given level of coverage, they will increase the premiums for young/healthy people to make up for the loss of premiums for the old/sick people.

You'll be OK with that?
How do you sell that to the young/healthy people?
 
Last edited:
I believe, between the two of us, there's only one person "laboring under assumptions" about the other person, and it's not I.

:confused:
What assumptions have I made about your views?

Harshaw said:
But, you show considerable skill at obfuscation and deflection away from mathematical and physical fact.

To what mathematical fact are you referring? Actuarial tables? Those only address the relative risk of an insuree; they say nothing about whether those risks should be taken into consideration from a macroeconomic policy standpoint.

Way to not actually address any of my points and just move straight into snarky comments. I like your style. ;)
 
Last edited:
Well then - your response doesnt address my pont. Just like I said.

Your point was that old and sick people incur more health care costs? Umm, OK. I don't think anyone has disputed that. What exactly does it have to do with insurance premiums?

Goobieman said:
If that were the case and the insurance companies could only charge one price for a given level of coverage, they will increase the premiums for young/healthy people to make up for the loss of premiums for the old/sick people.

You'll be OK with that?

Yes. That's the whole idea, to smooth out the cost of health insurance over the course of one's life, instead of charging virtually nothing when they are young and charging a nearly unaffordable amount when they are old. It will eliminate uncertainty and help people make better financial plans for their lives.

Goobieman said:
How do you sell that to the young/healthy people?

By requiring everyone to purchase health insurance to prevent anyone from gaming the system like that.
 
Last edited:
You both seem to be laboring under the assumption that I share your opinion that risks beyond a person's control (e.g. age) should be factored into the cost of their premiums, and/or that I share your opinion that higher medical costs should equal higher premiums (which defeats the whole purpose of insurance). I don't.
First, I have no such assumption - in fact, it is -quite- clear that:

-you place no value in actuarial tables, even though they are as close to perfect as one can be in predicting risks across demographics and time

-you operate under thge false assumption that charging dfferent premiums for different risks somehow elimiates the aggregating effect of the insurance pool as a whole.

Given that, your disagreement with what's being presented to you here is unsupportable.
 
Your point was that old and sick people incur more health care costs? Umm, OK. I don't think anyone has disputed that. What exactly does it have to do with insurance premiums?
You -tried- to dispute it. Why?

Oh wait -- maybe you didnt take the time to actually comprehend what I wrote. The irony.

And the relevance is obvious -- more costs = more risk; more risk = higher premiums. That is, after all, how insurance works.

By requiring everyone to purchase health insurance to prevent anyone from gaming the system like that.
You plan to convince young people that it is a good idea by simply forcing it on them?
Good luck wit that.
 
Last edited:
-you place no value in actuarial tables, even though they are as close to perfect as one can be in predicting risks across demographics and time

Incorrect sir. I'm quite certain, in fact, that actuarial tables are great for what they are INTENDED for: Predicting risks and calculating premiums accordingly, within the bounds of the law. They are completely irrelevant to the question I was addressing: Whether government should ALLOW insurers to charge anyone whatever the actuarial tables indicate, regardless of whether or not the person has any control over their risk factors. There are numerous policy reasons why that's a bad idea.

Again, you seem to have missed my point entirely. I have NEVER argued that old and young people are equal risks to health insurers.

Goobieman said:
-you operate under thge false assumption that charging dfferent premiums for different risks somehow elimiates the aggregating effect of the insurance pool as a whole.

It doesn't completely ELIMINATE it, but it certainly lessens it.
 
Last edited:
You -tried- to dispute it. Why?

Can you please point me to where I said that young people and old people are equally likely to be huge cost drains on insurers? I didn't.

Goobieman said:
You plan to convince young people that it is a good idea by simply forcing it on them?
Good luck wit that.

I don't need luck, it's already the law. A health insurance mandate goes into effect in 2014, whether you like it or not.
 
If that were the case and the insurance companies could only charge one price for a given level of coverage, they will increase the premiums for young/healthy people to make up for the loss of premiums for the old/sick people.

You'll be OK with that?
How do you sell that to the young/healthy people?
Selling things can be too difficult.
A GOOD salesman is most important. Any fool, even I, can sell water to a thirsty man in the desert.
But to sell a clean/plentiful water supply to those who need it can be impossible...
Rather than "selling" health insurance, just make it the law of our land.
 
Incorrect sir. I'm quite certain, in fact, that actuarial tables are great for what they are INTENDED for: Predicting risks and calculating premiums accordingly, within the bounds of the law.
So you agree that the insueance companies, through actuarial science, accurately calculate risk and adjust premiums accordingly.

They are completely irrelevant to the question I was addressing: Whether government should ALLOW insurers to charge anyone whatever the actuarial tables indicate, regardless of whether or not the person has any control over their risk factors. There are numerous policy reasons why that's a bad idea.
Just as there are numerous policy (among others) reasons why it is a bad idea to force the young and healthy to subsidize the health care costs of the old and sick, especially when the old and sick have conditions and afflictions related to their lifestyle choices.

It doesn't completely ELIMINATE it..
Then your point to that effect is countered. Thank you.
 
Do lLike the Swiss do. Insurance is mandatory, the Government annually negotiates the rate for essential cover with the insurance companies. No company can refuse cover, and the insured never has to pay more than 8% of salary. The companies can sell extra levels of cover at market rates.
 
Back
Top Bottom