Johnny
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2010
- Messages
- 571
- Reaction score
- 205
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Instead of whining, smokers should stop smoking... Disgusting habit...
We all have our vices.
Instead of whining, smokers should stop smoking... Disgusting habit...
True, but one chooses to smoke or engage in a lifestyle that will result in being overweight.
Instead of whining, smokers should stop smoking... Disgusting habit...
We all have our vices.
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.
I really dont know how that addresses what I asked.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.
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.
No... insurance is a means to aggregate cost across a number of people.That's exactly what insurance is, Goobie. Exactly.
I really dont know how that addresses what I asked.
Goobieman said:For most people, most of their costs come in their last 20-odd years. There's no real way to change that.
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.They should charge everyone the same price.
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?
Your asnswer didnt address the question. You can try to rephrase your asnwer if you like.A direct answer to your question doesn't address what you asked?
How does that change the fact that most medical costs for most people are incurred in their last ~20 years?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).
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?
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.
Well then - your response doesnt address my pont. Just like I said.It doesn't. It just changes when they're paying for it
I believe, between the two of us, there's only one person "laboring under assumptions" about the other person, and it's not I.
Harshaw said:But, you show considerable skill at obfuscation and deflection away from mathematical and physical fact.
Well then - your response doesnt address my pont. Just like I said.
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?
Goobieman said:How do you sell that to the young/healthy people?
First, I have no such assumption - in fact, it is -quite- clear that: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.
You -tried- to dispute it. Why?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 plan to convince young people that it is a good idea by simply forcing it on them?By requiring everyone to purchase health insurance to prevent anyone from gaming the system like 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
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.
You -tried- to dispute it. Why?
Goobieman said:You plan to convince young people that it is a good idea by simply forcing it on them?
Good luck wit that.
Selling things can be too difficult.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?
So you agree that the insueance companies, through actuarial science, accurately calculate risk and adjust premiums accordingly.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.
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.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.
Then your point to that effect is countered. Thank you.It doesn't completely ELIMINATE it..