I know. That is why you want other people to subsidize your family's health insurance. I don't want to subsidize your family's health insurance. Unfortunately for me, Ted Kennedy survived long enough to force through the PPACA. I know. It has to do with the government forcing insurance companies to sell you insurance at a rate they would never choose if left to their own devices. To make up for that, they raise rates on everyone else to cover the cost. Insurance is an agreement that if you pay a premium monthly, in the event that something happens that is covered by your policy, the insurance company will pay your costs (basically, there are other things involved like co-pays, deductibles, etc. that I am not going into). No, they analyze and look at each customer and price accordingly. That is why you are so gung ho about the PPACA, it is stopping the insurance company from looking at the individual and instead is forcing them to give you and others similarly situated a rate that is financially r****ded from the perspective of the insurance company. If there is a kid with leukemia, and they are going to be constantly in and out of the hospital and are going to require expensive treatments like bone marrow transplants, there is no way that an insurance company has any chance of earning a profit from selling them insurance at $200/month, $500/month, or even $1,000 per month. No insurer would willingly sell them such a policy. Read my flood insurance example above. Your driving record and habits are definitely taken into consideration when you are purchasing car insurance. They don't charge zero or near zero for car insurance because if someone hits your car, even through no fault of your own, they are going to be paying out potentially tens of thousands of dollars. That is also why the value of your car can be considered (cheaper cars are cheaper to insure). You can probably get a very inexpensive liability only policy, depending on your driving record.
No, they do not. No, I am "gung-ho" for ACA because it prevents insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions (which, btw, is just one biut very important reason I support ACA). No, the inusrance company won't ake a profit on that individual policy, but would make enough profit on other policies to continue to be very profitable overall. WHich in fact happened last year... the industry had $500billion in profits, and Aetna profits grew 19% despite covering pre-existing conditions. They are taken into account, but the final price is determined from a broader population.
If they didn't analyze individuals, there would be no issues with pre-existing conditions and everyone would pay the same rate. Your argument makes no sense. They look at individuals and do risk analysis based on the information available to them. You response is simply different words meaning the same thing. Denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions is insurance companies refusing to make financially r****ded decisions. Any rational insurance company would refuse to cover people with pre-existing conditions, or would set their premiums/deductibles so high that the customer would never want the policy. The fact that a law was passed FORCING them to cover pre-existing conditions is proof of that. Duh, that is the whole point. Yes, they can still make profits. They do it by raising rates for other people to cover the losses they take being forced to cover people they don't want as clients. They shouldn't be forced to cover those with pre-existing conditions, and the rest of the population could get insurance at rates more rationally calculated. You think it is okay, because you personally benefit. Regardless of the benefit to you, the PPACA is forcing insurance companies to issue money losing policies (and money losing policies would be a stupid thing to issue if not required by law). If your information is taken into account, then the price is based on an analysis of your information. The broader population is used in risk analysis (how many men who drive this far every year at this age with this driving record will have accidents in the next 5 years, etc.) but if you admit that they account for individual information, then they cannot be determining the final price based on the broader population. That is why it is more expensive to insure a teen driver than a middle aged woman.
Stupid moniker, Perhaps you just aren't built for the modern world as the developed world no longer relies on the rugged individualism. That type of thinking in the modern age is why so many middle aged white males are unhealthy and dying. There is a balance we need to achieve between making folks responsible for their health and helping those truly in need (pre-existing and the elderly). You should read up on the condition on those who made into old age prior to WW2.
I think the problem is that you simply don't know how things work. You don't know how insurance works, you don't know how government works, you don't know much honestly. Given that, I can understand why you think as you do, I'd just hope that one day you learn a bit and end up with better, more educated opinions.
The fact that Obamacare is failing for this reason only is why its a r****ded decision. Its failing so bad liberals are refusing to call it Obamacare now. There is no point in discussing this with people who have no concept of how insurance works, much less the corporate world.
They eliminate individuals, but base risk and then pricing over populations. Again, I am completely, 100% in favor of "forcing" them to cover people with pre-existing conditions. So it finally appears you acknowledge they measure risk and then pricing based on populations. And yes, they may charge a teen age boy higher than a senior female, but they don't refuse to insure a teen boy just on the possibility he may have higher accidents.
Sweetheart, you can't even respond to my entire posts throughout the thread and others. You pick and choose what to respond to AND still get it wrong. It's frankly embarrassing Bobby.
Given that you've shown time and time again that you don't know what you are talking about, I've had to accept you for your shortcomings. I get that maybe you actually think the things you've said in this thread, but you are hilariously wrong. I really think that's where we're gonna have to end it because you'd have to learn a LOT in order to be able to be involved in an intelligent conversation about ANY of the topics we've brought up in this thread. Perhaps one day you'll put in that work and come back equipped to have this adult conversation, till then have fun kiddo.
For trying to do what the rest of the developed world has done? We already have a healthcare system that covers the elderly (they sure ain't cheap) and veterans (ain't cheap either). What's your alternative there? Are you the free government clinic person? .... You mean call it by it's name? That's a pretty stupid complaint.... Or no point in discussing with people who have no concept about the world around them and what year we are in. You are about 50 years behind the times sweetheart.
I'd have to check your ID kiddo. You might be over 21, but I truly feel sorry for you if you're over 25 given what you have to learn about the world.
Sweetheart.... You are a forum troll. Look how many posts you have per year.... I gave you a chance but you merely are what you are.... You've been corrected many times but you disappear and reappear after a page or two and try the same nonsense. I don't expect a partisan hack to grasp the real world. And I really don't want a beer from you.... I assume you drink Bud Light.
LOL, I'll take that nonsense to mean that if I checked your ID, you'd be underage. Honestly, it makes a lot of sense. Do some growing up and a LOT of learning and come back and we'll try this again.
What are you talking about? In this very thread I have proposed a health care system that provides universal healthcare to everyone. Twice. I think you are again using different words to describe the same thing. They evaluate a person and use actuarial tables to determine what that person's individual plan should cost. The tables are derived from data collected from the population, but they are tools used in an individual evaluation. I know. That is what I said before, you like it because it forces the insurance companies to make financially r****ded decisions. Covering pre-existing conditions is financially r****ded. See above. If you have 20 accidents, they will probably not insure you at all. If you have a DUI, you generally have to get auto insurance from specialized companies that deal solely in that area (like high risk pools).
I agree with this solution and I think the biggest problem with ACA was that they didn't have a public component. I think with allowing people to buy into Medicare and the expansion of Medicaid is that those will gradually start filling the role in which a public component would do. You have a point and it isn't a sound decision for a for profit insurance company to take on a client with greatly added risk. That though is very reason why risks are pooled and it is necessary to increase the pool as much as possible. My understanding of the failing of ACA is that the risk pool isn't being increased as much as it was intended and that many who are otherwise healthy are opting out and choosing to pay the fine rather than getting insurance. As such that just causes a continued cascade of higher premiums and insurance companies pulling out of markets. I like your idea of essentially creating a public option that takes on some of that burden but I think there is a more fundamental problem. You're right that a rational choice for profit is to limit the risk as much as possible while maximizing the reward. Providing health care though isn't one of those things though that might be able to be providing relying upon a primarily market based profit driven model.
Generally speaking, this has been one of the better D&D threads ever... serious discussion with only a tolerable amount of personal bickering. (it takes some amount of personal animosity to motivate the effort) My latest totally politically unworkable thought is that a national insurance plan needs to work like a co-op. We draft something like Blue Cross that everyone pays into on percentage of income scale, the government pays off any deficit spending each year and the premiums rise the next year to cover the loss. The 'Plan" works to reduce costs and increase care every way they can including warehousing generic drugs, buying out profiteers like Mylan (BCBS is sitting on $9 billion dollars), setting reasonable compensation rates, owning regional specialty hospitals to efficiently serve more expensive conditions etc. This incentivizes people on the whole to approach healthcare as an informed consumer to keep the annual cost increases down for everyone. The 'board' (death panel) would standardize the level of care that is reasonable for difficult cases and end of life care. A centralized record and data base should be able to more easily analyze fraud and incompetencies as well as superior and efficient care. But co-ops are socialist and require a general public goodwill that may or may not be feasible. People would tend to resist a centralized data base for private health issues and the pure size of the 'system', requiring every doctor and hospital to be on the same format would be a massive technical undertaking. But no more than Facebook or Google is already doing.
Start calling you BobbytheTroll. Get a life dude, perhaps read up on the world so you can be informed.
LOL, don't be mad at me guy, I didn't tell you to out yourself as a little kid. You did that on your own.
