General [M]ayhem

Go Back   General [M]ayhem > Real Time Sub-Forums > The Pit
Register Members List Mark Forums Read [M]erchandise Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Rapier
 
The real problem with health insurance is that it is the most heavily regulated sector in the economy. Because of this, we have health insurance covering even minor expenses like checkups. You know, regularly occurring expenses. That is the very antithesis of insurance. In a free market, technically anybody can get coverage. It's really a matter of how much they're willing to pay.

When it comes to rescission, it really is underhanded. But that could also be a tool for another insurance company to grab more share. Just run ads saying, "other companies will try to rescind your coverage if you get a serious illness. We don't." It's kind of like how back around 2005 in Kelo v New London drummed up a big eminent domain scare and afterward, a bunch of state legislatures passed laws against eminent domain for commercial use and restricting the use of "blighting" to condemn a property.

But we also need to acknowledge to the fact that there are material impacts on a person's health based on the life they lead. If somebody is a smoker and the other isn't, the smoker needs to pay more for health insurance. If one constantly engages in statistically dangerous extreme sports and one doesn't, the former should pay more. Depending on how health insurance is regulated, this might not happen. The result is a market distortion and people fall through the cracks.
__________________
http://settingtheline.wordpress.com - Intellectually honest commentary on the issues of the day
Old 05-03-2010, 04:25 PM Rapier is offline  
Reply With Quote
#46  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

Tom Kazansky
911 Was an Inside Job. Bush is traitor like Prescott Bush
 
Tom Kazansky's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Electrikfuzz050 View Post
I have no problem with insurance companies providing compensation to people when it's needed or deserved. What I have a problem with is forcing them to insure morbidly obese people and chain smokers.

That's why insurance companies created "risk categories".
__________________
ERTW - Engineers Rule The World
Old 05-03-2010, 04:56 PM Tom Kazansky is offline  
Reply With Quote
#47  

Electrikfuzz050
 
Electrikfuzz050's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Kazansky View Post
That's why insurance companies created "risk categories".

Yes, however if your insurance rates are affected by what category you fall under, the insurance companies can still charge you an ungodly amount of money, effectively dropping you without forcibly removing you from their customer base, rendering any legislation useless.
Old 05-03-2010, 05:05 PM Electrikfuzz050 is offline  
Reply With Quote
#48  

Xayd
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Electrikfuzz050 View Post
So if someone starts shooting heroin and becomes afflicted with endocarditis, the insurance company shouldn't be able to drop them?

no, they shouldn't, as long as we have health care via insurance.

i see 10-20 retards on the street every day who are in no way shape or form qualified to drive a car, yet i cannot drag them out of their cars and beat them to death because they are retards. same principle.

if that's too much for them, they should stop selling health insurance so that we can move to a public system and get it over with.
Old 05-03-2010, 05:44 PM Xayd is offline  
Reply With Quote
#49  

Coqui
 
Coqui's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Electrikfuzz050 View Post
A person is considered morbidly obese when their obesity affects other areas of their health. i.e. heart disease, diabetes, sleep apnea, etc.

I'm sure you're aware what chain smoking is, however in most cases it's a sign of nicotine addiction, which is what I meant by it.

I wouldn't be totally opposed to having some regulation where the insurance company can tell you to lower your risk factor, i.e. lose weight or stop smoking, and some sort of time period to do this, depending on what the patient is afflicted with, before being able to drop the patient.

So a 350 pound man who other than his weight is in good health (obviosly fat looking) is not morbidly obese? (I've known a few guys this way.)

Or a guy who smokes 4 cigarettes a day is a chain smoker? Because he's addicted to nicotine as wel. (I also have known a few guys like that)

And how can they tell if you need to lose weight? Most insurance companies go by BMI, and I'm pretty sure that classifies Vendetta as Obese (if not morbidly obese)
__________________
I lack boobs and have a penis
Old 05-03-2010, 06:15 PM Coqui is offline  
Reply With Quote
#50  

Electrikfuzz050
 
Electrikfuzz050's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coqui View Post
So a 350 pound man who other than his weight is in good health (obviosly fat looking) is not morbidly obese? (I've known a few guys this way.)

Or a guy who smokes 4 cigarettes a day is a chain smoker? Because he's addicted to nicotine as wel. (I also have known a few guys like that)

And how can they tell if you need to lose weight? Most insurance companies go by BMI, and I'm pretty sure that classifies Vendetta as Obese (if not morbidly obese)

Seeing as the medical definition of morbidly obese is obesity contributing to other health problems, no, that isn't morbid obesity.

Like I said in my previous post, I was using chain smoker as referring to someone who smokes a lot. You know what I meant by it.

To be diagnosed as obese by a doctor, it requires more than a BMI (I know how this works, I'm 6'6" and 245 lbs. I'm considered morbidly obese by the BMI, even though I have a low body fat %).

Obviously, in order to use these as some sort of criteria for insurance pricing, some standards would have to be established, and by someone more educated in medicine than I am. However it seems a hell of a lot better to me than not dropping anyone ever and attempting to force insurance companies to charge every single person the same amount of money for health insurance.
Old 05-03-2010, 06:51 PM Electrikfuzz050 is offline  
Reply With Quote
#51  

Electrikfuzz050
 
Electrikfuzz050's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xayd View Post
no, they shouldn't, as long as we have health care via insurance.

i see 10-20 retards on the street every day who are in no way shape or form qualified to drive a car, yet i cannot drag them out of their cars and beat them to death because they are retards. same principle.

if that's too much for them, they should stop selling health insurance so that we can move to a public system and get it over with.

How does health insurance companies dropping heroin junkies equate to beating people to death
Old 05-03-2010, 06:52 PM Electrikfuzz050 is offline  
Reply With Quote
#52  

Tom Kazansky
911 Was an Inside Job. Bush is traitor like Prescott Bush
 
Tom Kazansky's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Electrikfuzz050 View Post
Yes, however if your insurance rates are affected by what category you fall under, the insurance companies can still charge you an ungodly amount of money, effectively dropping you without forcibly removing you from their customer base, rendering any legislation useless.

I don't follow. How is charging you more money equivalent to dropping you? Shit, insurance companies will charge you whatever they want. I'm 25 years old, and the day I turned 25 my insurance rates were cut in half, literally. Prior to that I was paying high premiums (lol, profiling) despite an 100% clean driving record (no tickets, no accidents) and 8+3 years of experience (driving certificate gives you 3 years, plus 8 of me actually operating a car incident free), but because of the location of my job and the amount of travel required using a personal vehicle, driving was a necessity I could not do without, so I had to pay. And yes, that was the lowest rate I could find, even using an independent broker. The same shit will happen with health insurance, and honestly with the expenses that can be incurred it's really almost essential for most to have at least some form of it. It's wrong for an insurance company to charge you for a service that they make impossible to collect.

I honestly don't know what happened to the insurance industry. In the San Francisco earthquake in the early 1900s, the damages were something like the equivalent of $6 billion in today's dollars, and insurance companies told their brokers to just pay their policy holders without a fight. Now, you can't claim $10 with them having a hissy fit.
__________________
ERTW - Engineers Rule The World
Old 05-03-2010, 11:16 PM Tom Kazansky is offline  
Reply With Quote
#53  

Bukkakeboy
 
Bukkakeboy's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Kazansky View Post
So you want insurance companies to operate in a climate without any risk whatsoever?

Amazing. I hope you wrote a personal cheque to Goldman Sachs in 2008 as well, because Lord forbid they make a bad call on investments.

The whole reason people buy insurance is to cover themselves in case "shit happens". If shit doesn't happen, the insurance company gets to keep your money, so why shouldn't they pay you for the "service" that YOU PAY THEM FOR when shit actually does?

No, you are jumping to conclusions. I just came up with an example I thought was better then the heroin one. Coqui is the one this post is for.

I'm for higher rates for people with risky lifestyles/behaviours (out and above the norm), not dropping.
__________________
fuck IRL

this is the internet... and someone is WRONG on it

-Tongboy
Old 05-03-2010, 11:22 PM Bukkakeboy is offline  
Reply With Quote
#54  

Bukkakeboy
 
Bukkakeboy's Avatar
 
Oh and not charging extra for people who belong to risk-groups is discriminatory for everyone who does not belong to these. The companies will need to make that money back, so either we all pay for their increased risk through higher premiums, or the higher premiums get put on the people who actually have a higher risk of getting ill.

It's like car insurance. If you are 16-23 (or 25 or whatever) you pay a LOT more then people who are above that age. This is fair because young people (men esp) are MUCH more likely to crash then any other group afaik.

oh, b10
__________________
fuck IRL

this is the internet... and someone is WRONG on it

-Tongboy
Old 05-03-2010, 11:27 PM Bukkakeboy is offline  
Reply With Quote
#55  

Tom Kazansky
911 Was an Inside Job. Bush is traitor like Prescott Bush
 
Tom Kazansky's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bukkakeboy View Post
No, you are jumping to conclusions. I just came up with an example I thought was better then the heroin one. Coqui is the one this post is for.

I'm for higher rates for people with risky lifestyles/behaviours (out and above the norm), not dropping.

Ah, fair enough then .
__________________
ERTW - Engineers Rule The World
Old 05-04-2010, 12:38 AM Tom Kazansky is offline  
Reply With Quote
#56  

Tom Kazansky
911 Was an Inside Job. Bush is traitor like Prescott Bush
 
Tom Kazansky's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bukkakeboy View Post
Oh and not charging extra for people who belong to risk-groups is discriminatory for everyone who does not belong to these. The companies will need to make that money back, so either we all pay for their increased risk through higher premiums, or the higher premiums get put on the people who actually have a higher risk of getting ill.

It's like car insurance. If you are 16-23 (or 25 or whatever) you pay a LOT more then people who are above that age. This is fair because young people (men esp) are MUCH more likely to crash then any other group afaik.

oh, b10

That's called profiling. If insurance companies tried further subdividing it by race, what do you expect the result will be?
__________________
ERTW - Engineers Rule The World
Old 05-04-2010, 12:39 AM Tom Kazansky is offline  
Reply With Quote
#57  

Coqui
 
Coqui's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bukkakeboy View Post
No, you are jumping to conclusions. I just came up with an example I thought was better then the heroin one. Coqui is the one this post is for.

I'm for higher rates for people with risky lifestyles/behaviours (out and above the norm), not dropping.

My post was simply pointing out the ease of abuse of the classifications. My insurance premiums are higher simply because I work out. If I stopped working out, eventually I would pay less in premiums.

My other examples, like the sex one, shows that while HIV is more controlled now, they can determine that someone who gets Herpes is more likely to contract HIV (there's no correlation of the two other than the person involved has sex)
__________________
I lack boobs and have a penis
Old 05-04-2010, 06:19 AM Coqui is offline  
Reply With Quote
#58  

Tom Kazansky
911 Was an Inside Job. Bush is traitor like Prescott Bush
 
Tom Kazansky's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coqui View Post
My post was simply pointing out the ease of abuse of the classifications. My insurance premiums are higher simply because I work out. If I stopped working out, eventually I would pay less in premiums.

I really hope you're not being serious. If so, that's fucking retarded. Working out = generally healthier = less sick time = less claims. I understand you do increase wear and tear on your body, but seriously, that's stupid. You also heal your body faster when you're in better shape. I guess the insurance company is less interested in encouraging a healthy lifestyle which would save them money in the long run!
__________________
ERTW - Engineers Rule The World
Old 05-04-2010, 10:13 AM Tom Kazansky is offline  
Reply With Quote
#59  

Bukkakeboy
 
Bukkakeboy's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Kazansky View Post
That's called profiling. If insurance companies tried further subdividing it by race, what do you expect the result will be?

and?

I thought I (and you) had successfully argued for this kind of profiling?
Should a random guy thats in all ways equal with another except that this other guy regularly goes mountainbiking pay the same for health insurance?
Its like with car insurance. People who are prone to risk (at least by conscious effort) should pay more then people who are not. If they don't, the entire population gets discriminated against through having to pay for that groups heightened risk



Bringing in race is a lame duck because why would you (on health insurance) discriminate on a racial basis?
__________________
fuck IRL

this is the internet... and someone is WRONG on it

-Tongboy
Old 05-04-2010, 10:32 AM Bukkakeboy is offline  
Reply With Quote
#60  

Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:25 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.