• 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
Kandahar said:
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.
Click to expand...
Dont be dishonest now - I said that for mos people, most health care costs are incurred in the last 20 years of their lives.
You tried to duspue 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.
Click to expand...
ROTFL
So you -arent- going to try to convince anyne that your idea has merit -- you're just going to use force to make people comply with it.
Isn't freedom grand?

AND... you didnt address the question I asked. I asked you how you planned to convince young healthy people that they should subsidize the costs of the old and sick.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
The guy with the speeding tickets CHOSE to drive recklessly. No one chooses to get leukemia.

Regarding the other variables that you mentioned (the age and gender of the applicant, and the type of car), ideally that wouldn't play a factor for auto insurance. For what it's worth, it's NOT fair that insurers would assume that someone is more of a risk based solely on their demographics rather than their actions. However, it's simply not that big of a deal since auto insurance costs are considerably lower and less important than health insurance costs. It just isn't worth the hassle of regulating auto insurance more heavily.
Click to expand...

nobody chooses to get in an accident either. But they do choose their lifestyle choices just as they do choose the speed they drive. And they both have consequences that are costly. So why should anybody but them have to pay for these choices?
 
Oh my!

:shock:

The strawmen are taking a terrible beating on this thread, aren't they?


OH, THE INHUMANITY!

:roll:
 
For clarification: We're talking about how private companies charge for their services. Their payment structures should be entirely up to them and the participation in these plans should be 100% voluntary. Health insurance is nothing but a business agreement - a service offered by private corporations that may or may not be worth it to you. The only thing that should be mandated is full disclosure (including making sure that the policies are clear). I really just don't understand how we can debate whether or not it should be 1) forced upon each individual and 2) regulated to the degree that the companies are told how much and for what reasons they are allowed to charge their customers.

This whole health insurance debate really just doesn't make sense to me. I've heard a lot of arguments in favor of the legislation. And I truly am trying to understand. But I just don't. Private company offering a service that you choose to take or you don't. Why did the government step in?
 
fredmertz said:
This whole health insurance debate really just doesn't make sense to me. I've heard a lot of arguments in favor of the legislation. And I truly am trying to understand. But I just don't. Private company offering a service that you choose to take or you don't. Why did the government step in?
Click to expand...
Bottom line?
Some people think it is unfair for people to make emoney off of other people being sick.
 
Goobieman said:
Bottom line?
Some people think it is unfair for people to make emoney off of other people being sick.
Click to expand...

That's not what insurance companies do. People getting sick is what COSTS them money...
 
Kandahar said:
:confused:
What assumptions have I made about your views?
Click to expand...

Gosh, I dunno, maybe this:

Kandahar said:
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.
Click to expand...

It was, after all, directly quoted in what I posted, so I have no idea how you could be confused about it unless you wanted to be.



To what mathematical fact are you referring?
Click to expand...

:roll: The mathematical and physical facts that most people's medical costs come in the last 20 years of life, which is what I said.


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. ;)
Click to expand...

Funny; it seems to me that this is exactly what YOU did. I'm talking about costs. That's obvious enough. You're trying to counter-argue with premiums. Not the same thing, you know the difference, and that you are purposely obfuscating speaks to your honesty here. Especially now that you're trying to blame me for it.

Stick to what I actually say, not your fantasies about what I think.
 
fredmertz said:
That's not what insurance companies do. People getting sick is what COSTS them money...
Click to expand...
Yes... but the premiums are computed with thosse costs in mind, so they still make money.
Insurance companies -rely- on the fact that people get sick; if people didn't get sick, insurance companies would have no business.

And thus:
Some people think it is unfair for people to make money off of other people being sick.
 
Goobieman said:
So you agree that the insueance companies, through actuarial science, accurately calculate risk and adjust premiums accordingly.
Click to expand...

Yes, of course. I don't know where you ever got the impression that I thought otherwise. Insurance companies, through actuarial science, will charge exactly the premium that the market will bear for any given demographic. Our point of contention is whether they should be ALLOWED to do that from a policy standpoint, and/or whether it's a good idea to allow them to do that from a macroeconomic standpoint.

Goobieman said:
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,
Click to expand...

Some economic reasons why that is indeed a good idea:
- To eliminate economic uncertainty and help people make better financial plans for their lives
- To eliminate age discrimination in the work place
- To steer the system toward catastrophic - rather than comprehensive - health insurance, which will likely be the result of a more level playing field across age groups

Now then, what are your economic reasons why it's a bad idea?

Goobieman said:
especially when the old and sick have conditions and afflictions related to their lifestyle choices.
Click to expand...

Why do you continue to bring up this red herring? I've already said numerous times that I don't have a problem with charging people for their lifestyle choices (e.g. smoking, obesity). Your age, however, is not a lifestyle choice.

Goobieman said:
Then your point to that effect is countered. Thank you.
Click to expand...

And this is why you're a political extremist. You only believe in all-or-nothing solutions. If something doesn't solve 100% of a problem, then it must be completely worthless. :roll:
 
Last edited:
fredmertz said:
nobody chooses to get in an accident either. But they do choose their lifestyle choices just as they do choose the speed they drive. And they both have consequences that are costly. So why should anybody but them have to pay for these choices?
Click to expand...

If they choose to drive recklessly, then I agree that they SHOULD pay for those choices.
 
Harshaw said:
:roll: The mathematical and physical facts that most people's medical costs come in the last 20 years of life, which is what I said.
Click to expand...

Well you'll certainly get no argument from me on that point, so I'm not exactly sure why you're talking about it.

Harshaw said:
Funny; it seems to me that this is exactly what YOU did. I'm talking about costs. That's obvious enough. You're trying to counter-argue with premiums. Not the same thing, you know the difference, and that you are purposely obfuscating speaks to your honesty here. Especially now that you're trying to blame me for it.
Click to expand...

In other words, I'm talking about the subject of the thread (when should health insurance cost more) and you're talking about something unrelated. Were you planning on drawing some sort of logical conclusion about health care premiums based on the fact that most health care costs are incurred in the last 10-20 years of one's life? Or were you just stating that little tidbit of trivia just for fun? The more you know...
 
Kandahar said:
Were you planning on drawing some sort of logical conclusion about health care premiums based on the fact that most health care costs are incurred in the last 10-20 years of one's life? Or were you just stating that little tidbit of trivia just for fun? The more you know...
Click to expand...

If you had engaged me on what I said, you might have found out. :shrug:
 
Kandahar said:
Sounds good to me in theory...I like the idea of people being financially rewarded for healthy lifestyles. I'm just not sure how it would play out in practice. It seems like it would involve a great deal of subjectivity on the part of insurers, would be difficult to monitor effectively, and would be invasive to people's privacy.

Smoking and obesity are the low-hanging fruit because they're fairly easy to measure, are reasonably objective, and are responsible for the vast majority of behavior-related illnesses.
Click to expand...

No matter how great the threat, nobody will change their eating habits, myself included, until new symptoms scare them. I ate everything I wanted until My cholesterol jumped up to 230.

Now it's bran muffins, 2 percent fat milk, Sanka, and poached eggs.

ricksfolly
 
ricksfolly said:
No matter how great the threat, nobody will change their eating habits, myself included, until new symptoms scare them. I ate everything I wanted until My cholesterol jumped up to 230.

Now it's bran muffins, 2 percent fat milk, Sanka, and poached eggs.

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

When I went into the hospital I was retaining 20 or so pounds of fluid. Salt was the culprit and now my diet is as salt free as possible.
 
Kandahar said:
Our point of contention is whether they should be ALLOWED to do that from a policy standpoint, and/or whether it's a good idea to allow them to do that from a macroeconomic standpoint.
Click to expand...
And the answer is yes.

Some economic reasons why that is indeed a good idea:
Now then, what are your economic reasons why it's a bad idea?
Click to expand...
Oooh... moving the goalposts.
The issue was POLICY reasons. I dont need to limit those reasons to just economics.
1: People are responsbile for themselves, not others. Forcing people to -directly- subsidize the health care cost forces them to be respobsible for others when they have no such responsibilty
2: Fixing insurance costs meddles with the free market and limits options for consumers. People should not be forced to buy insirance at all; forcing young, healthy to but insurance they do not need unnecessarily takes from them money they could better use elsewhere.
3: Policy holders are forced to pay larger premiums that they woudl otherwise need to and all they get in return is some hope that their insurance will not go up later. There's no -guarantee- that this will be the case, for any number of reasons.

As for YOUR reasons:
- To eliminate economic uncertainty and help people make better financial plans for their lives
Click to expand...
This is a false premise. Thats the intention; there's no guarantee. Meanwhile, these people spend money they dont need to spend and must go without things they might be better off having.

- To eliminate age discrimination in the work place
Click to expand...
Only in terms of the cost of insurance. There are a zillion resons why an employer might want to hire a yonger person over an older one; to think tha this small facotr will eliminate age discrimination in the workplace is farcical at best.

- To steer the system toward catastrophic - rather than comprehensive - health insurance, which will likely be the result of a more level playing field across age groups
Click to expand...
Nothing in forcing younger people to subsidize the insurance costs of older people does this.

Why do you continue to bring up this red herring? I've already said numerous times that I don't have a problem with charging people for their lifestyle choices (e.g. smoking, obesity). Your age, however, is not a lifestyle choice.
Click to expand...
No,. It is, however a demonstrable risk factor.
Like any other demonstrable risk factor, age is a legimitate factor in determining premiums.
Once you agree that something is a demonstrable risk factor, there's no sound argument for excluding those factors when determining premiums.

And this is why you're a political extremist.
Click to expand...
Hey... you stated something and then you admitted that you were wrong. Dont be mad at ME.
 
Goobieman said:
Hey... you stated something and then you admitted that you were wrong. Dont be mad at ME.
Click to expand...

Every time I get bored and decide to come back to this forum, one conversation with you and/or Scarecrow Akhbar is enough to remind me of why I'm growing to hate this place. I can feel my IQ dropping whenever I try to engage you in conversation.

See y'all again in a few weeks, or whenever I get bored. I think I'm done here for now. :2wave:
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
Every time I get bored and decide to come back to this forum, one conversation with you and/or Scarecrow Akhbar is enough to remind me of why I'm growing to hate this place. I can feel my IQ dropping whenever I try to engage you in conversation.

See y'all again in a few weeks, or whenever I get bored. I think I'm done here for now. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Sure hate to see you go... Your friends outnumber your enemies if that's any help.

ricksfolly
 
Goobieman said:
Yes... but the premiums are computed with thosse costs in mind, so they still make money.
Insurance companies -rely- on the fact that people get sick; if people didn't get sick, insurance companies would have no business.

And thus:
Some people think it is unfair for people to make money off of other people being sick.
Click to expand...

I guess those people hate doctors, too?
 
If they indulge in risky behaviour, jack up the rates. Smoking, obesity (overweight is currently subjective, IMO, older people should not have to starve themselves to maintain the weight they had when just out of high school), drug/alcohol abuse, sky diving, bungee jumping, hanging out in bars, excessive exposure to sun, poking mean dogs with sticks, and so on....

We shouldn't be subsidizing stupidity....
 
UtahBill said:
If they indulge in risky behaviour, jack up the rates. Smoking, obesity (overweight is currently subjective, IMO, older people should not have to starve themselves to maintain the weight they had when just out of high school), drug/alcohol abuse, sky diving, bungee jumping, hanging out in bars, excessive exposure to sun, poking mean dogs with sticks, and so on....

We shouldn't be subsidizing stupidity....
Click to expand...

This is how I feel, but from my previous post I believe it is high in the sky thinking. There is no way to enforce those kinds of rules. The only way I can think of to punish people who participate in unhealthy lifestyles is through tax increases and putting that money directly toward health care. For example...

Tobacco products... I think they're taxed enough as is, but I really think some of the tax money (if not all) should go towards health care.
Going to the gym... getting a tax cut.
Eating fast food (or other unhealthy products)... like tobacco products, have an "unhealthy tax".
Buying healthy foods... getting a tax cut or maybe no taxes on the food at all (I think they already don't tax many foods? I can't remember)

You get the point.

Now I wouldn't necessarily advocate this type of system... I'm just saying that it would be the only true way to punish people for unhealthy choices and reward those who are less of a burden on the health care system.
 
And I noticed that many people said smokers should pay more for their health insurance... and I'm curious if anyone has any ideas on how to enforce that? Because like I said, people could lie to their doctors about their smoking habits. Personally I think that it's unfair to gang up solely on smokers. Being a fat ass is more disgusting and more unhealthy than smoking IMO. There are many more complications that come with being overweight. If smokers should pay more, so should fat people.
 
Last edited:
Jucon said:
And I noticed that many people said smokers should pay more for their health insurance... and I'm curious if anyone has any ideas on how to enforce that? Because like I said, people could lie to their doctors about their smoking habits. Personally I think that it's unfair to gang up solely on smokers. Being a fat ass is more disgusting and more unhealthy than smoking IMO. There are many more complications that come with being overweight. If smoker should pay more, so should fat people.
Click to expand...

Statistically smokers don't cost anymore than nonsmokers, so they are paying more because it's unpopular.
 
Jucon said:
This is how I feel, but from my previous post I believe it is high in the sky thinking. There is no way to enforce those kinds of rules. The only way I can think of to punish people who participate in unhealthy lifestyles is through tax increases and putting that money directly toward health care. For example...

Tobacco products... I think they're taxed enough as is, but I really think some of the tax money (if not all) should go towards health care.
Going to the gym... getting a tax cut.
Eating fast food (or other unhealthy products)... like tobacco products, have an "unhealthy tax".
Buying healthy foods... getting a tax cut or maybe no taxes on the food at all (I think they already don't tax many foods? I can't remember)

You get the point.

Now I wouldn't necessarily advocate this type of system... I'm just saying that it would be the only true way to punish people for unhealthy choices and reward those who are less of a burden on the health care system.
Click to expand...

Running marathons? You say going to the gym... fine, but do you have to go to the gym to be fit? I am a distance runner who hates the treadmill. I prefer to get outside and run... I haven't been in a gym since I graduated from grad school.... shouldn't there be some consdieration there? This whole exercise thing would be VERY hard to fairly credit... though I like the idea...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom