Small Families Subsidizing Large Families.

[RadiomanATL]

Given that insurance companies are all about $$$, I'd be willing to bet they don't calculate their family rates based upon only one child. They no doubt take an average (maybe a bit more) and go from there.

At my last job, the only choices were 'employee' and 'family'.

And finally the truth is skirted around.

Instead of taking the time to figure actual costs, the insurance lobby paid congress to allow them to charge small families, who decided to restrict the number of children they had for whatever reason, the same as large families, increasing their profits in doing so.

Since virtually all of the insurance plans sold through employers are like this and since employer provided insurance pretty much IS the marketplace here in America, I say with confidence, so much for the concept of 'competition' in the current insurance market.

Insurance lobby paid congress? Maybe, but not in the scenario in which you are complaining about. There's no reason to pay off congress when competing for group risk coverages offered to companies.

The competition is alive and well. What you are confused about is that the insurance companies aren't competing for your business with group coverage policies (you are not a group after all), and instead compete for your employers business.

You always may choose to opt out and research an individual policy. In that arena the insurance companies do compete for your business.

Don't like your current benefits package? Get a new employer. Your complaints have no basis in reality.

 

[AVG-JOE]

You can not like the way an internal combustion engine works either, but talking about it isn't going to change the way it actually works.

Either sign up, or don't. Either use the engine, or don't.

Bullshit.

Felix Wankel

Wankel engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I posted that you can't change the way an internal combustion engine works.... and your rebuttal is posting an internal combustion engine that works like an internal combustion engine?

The point is that humans are clever. The Wankel Engine works very differently from a standard internal combustion engine. Sure, it is similar - as would a more effectively fair insurance program that considered the actual number of children being insured be similar to the current blanket rate for all we currently use.

All I'm trying to say is that we are not 'stuck' with what we have. Humans are clever creatures.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Bullshit.

Felix Wankel

Wankel engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I posted that you can't change the way an internal combustion engine works.... and your rebuttal is posting an internal combustion engine that works like an internal combustion engine?

The point is that humans are clever. The Wankel Engine works very differently from a standard internal combustion engine. Sure, it is similar - as would a more effectively fair insurance program that considered the actual number of children being insured be similar to the current blanket rate for all we currently use.

All I'm trying to say is that we are not 'stuck' with what we have. Humans are clever creatures.

The point is that it is still an internal combustion engine....

 

[AVG-JOE]

Given that insurance companies are all about $$$, I'd be willing to bet they don't calculate their family rates based upon only one child. They no doubt take an average (maybe a bit more) and go from there.

At my last job, the only choices were 'employee' and 'family'.

And finally the truth is skirted around.

Instead of taking the time to figure actual costs, the insurance lobby paid congress to allow them to charge small families, who decided to restrict the number of children they had for whatever reason, the same as large families, increasing their profits in doing so.

Since virtually all of the insurance plans sold through employers are like this and since employer provided insurance pretty much IS the marketplace here in America, I say with confidence, so much for the concept of 'competition' in the current insurance market.

Insurance lobby paid congress? Maybe, but not in the scenario in which you are complaining about. There's no reason to pay off congress when competing for group risk coverages offered to companies.

The competition is alive and well. What you are confused about is that the insurance companies aren't competing for your business with group coverage policies (you are not a group after all), and instead compete for your employers business.

You always may choose to opt out and research an individual policy. In that arena the insurance companies do compete for your business.

Don't like your current benefits package? Get a new employer. Your complaints have no basis in reality.

So why can't an employer, who happens to have employees with small families, even find an insurance provider who offers a per child rate?

 

[jillian]

The point is that it is still an internal combustion engine....

Well, to use your analogy, more to the point, at some time, doesn't one have to admit that there may be something better than the internal combustion engine and use that instead?

And, fwiw, I have one child. Do you really think I should have to pay the same as someone who has three? or five? or seven? etc...

 

[RadiomanATL]

The point is that it is still an internal combustion engine....

Well, to use your analogy, more to the point, at some time, doesn't one have to admit that there may be something better than the internal combustion engine and use that instead?

In which case you wouldn't be using the internal combustion engine....which is what I said...

 

[RadiomanATL]

And finally the truth is skirted around.

Instead of taking the time to figure actual costs, the insurance lobby paid congress to allow them to charge small families, who decided to restrict the number of children they had for whatever reason, the same as large families, increasing their profits in doing so.

Since virtually all of the insurance plans sold through employers are like this and since employer provided insurance pretty much IS the marketplace here in America, I say with confidence, so much for the concept of 'competition' in the current insurance market.

Insurance lobby paid congress? Maybe, but not in the scenario in which you are complaining about. There's no reason to pay off congress when competing for group risk coverages offered to companies.

The competition is alive and well. What you are confused about is that the insurance companies aren't competing for your business with group coverage policies (you are not a group after all), and instead compete for your employers business.

You always may choose to opt out and research an individual policy. In that arena the insurance companies do compete for your business.

Don't like your current benefits package? Get a new employer. Your complaints have no basis in reality.

So why can't an employer, who happens to have employees with small families, even find an insurance provider who offers a per child rate?

I'm sure your employer could request a unique benefits package based on such a plan.

But I guarantee that the rates would be much, much higher than the current one you have. The administration costs would be much higher for such a group coverage plan.

Mass produced cars are cheap. Specifically and uniquely built ones are expensive.

 

[RadiomanATL]

The point is that it is still an internal combustion engine....

Well, to use your analogy, more to the point, at some time, doesn't one have to admit that there may be something better than the internal combustion engine and use that instead?

And, fwiw, I have one child. Do you really think I should have to pay the same as someone who has three? or five? or seven? etc...

You don't have to pay anything. You can always opt out of your employers plan and get an individual one.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Given that insurance companies are all about $$$, I'd be willing to bet they don't calculate their family rates based upon only one child. They no doubt take an average (maybe a bit more) and go from there.

At my last job, the only choices were 'employee' and 'family'.

And finally the truth is skirted around.

Instead of taking the time to figure actual costs, the insurance lobby paid congress to allow them to charge small families, who decided to restrict the number of children they had for whatever reason, the same as large families, increasing their profits in doing so.

Since virtually all of the insurance plans sold through employers are like this and since employer provided insurance pretty much IS the marketplace here in America, I say with confidence, so much for the concept of 'competition' in the current insurance market.

Insurance lobby paid congress? Maybe, but not in the scenario in which you are complaining about. There's no reason to pay off congress when competing for group risk coverages offered to companies.

The competition is alive and well. What you are confused about is that the insurance companies aren't competing for your business with group coverage policies (you are not a group after all), and instead compete for your employers business.

You always may choose to opt out and research an individual policy. In that arena the insurance companies do compete for your business.

Don't like your current benefits package? Get a new employer. Your complaints have no basis in reality.

Opting out and researching an individual policy is not an option. Employers pay a portion of premiums, bringing insurance within reach of the bulk of middle class workers and I have NEVER heard of an employer willing to put the premium subsidy into a workers paycheck when they opt out of the employer provided insurance for any reason.

 

[RadiomanATL]

And finally the truth is skirted around.

Instead of taking the time to figure actual costs, the insurance lobby paid congress to allow them to charge small families, who decided to restrict the number of children they had for whatever reason, the same as large families, increasing their profits in doing so.

Since virtually all of the insurance plans sold through employers are like this and since employer provided insurance pretty much IS the marketplace here in America, I say with confidence, so much for the concept of 'competition' in the current insurance market.

Insurance lobby paid congress? Maybe, but not in the scenario in which you are complaining about. There's no reason to pay off congress when competing for group risk coverages offered to companies.

The competition is alive and well. What you are confused about is that the insurance companies aren't competing for your business with group coverage policies (you are not a group after all), and instead compete for your employers business.

You always may choose to opt out and research an individual policy. In that arena the insurance companies do compete for your business.

Don't like your current benefits package? Get a new employer. Your complaints have no basis in reality.

Opting out and researching an individual policy is not an option. Employers pay a portion of premiums, bringing insurance within reach of the bulk of middle class workers and I have NEVER heard of an employer willing to put the premium subsidy into a workers paycheck when they opt out of the employer provided insurance for any reason.

Actually it IS an option.

Just one you don't wish to take. So why complain about an insurance option in which your employer is paying a portion of, and using their clout to get group coverage rates in order to offer you lower cost insurance?



Listen, I believe that insurance reform is needed (what kind is another debate). But this "I only have one child thing so I should pay less" is a non-starter. Not one proposal that is being considered by congress that I have seen would change the way in which insurance companies choose to administer group/diluted risk policies. They may open the marketplace for more companies to compete for such business, but the proposals aren't changing the way in which these kind of policies work.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Insurance lobby paid congress? Maybe, but not in the scenario in which you are complaining about. There's no reason to pay off congress when competing for group risk coverages offered to companies.

The competition is alive and well. What you are confused about is that the insurance companies aren't competing for your business with group coverage policies (you are not a group after all), and instead compete for your employers business.

You always may choose to opt out and research an individual policy. In that arena the insurance companies do compete for your business.

Don't like your current benefits package? Get a new employer. Your complaints have no basis in reality.

So why can't an employer, who happens to have employees with small families, even find an insurance provider who offers a per child rate?

I'm sure your employer could request a unique benefits package based on such a plan.

But I guarantee that the rates would be much, much higher than the current one you have. The administration costs would be much higher for such a group coverage plan.

Mass produced cars are cheap. Specifically and uniquely built ones are expensive.

What makes you so sure?

What makes you think that if competition were alive and well in the insurance market there wouldn't be a mass market for insurance with a per child rate?

How can you 'guarantee' such a thing when the insurance industry has so successfully squelched such competition in their market place?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

The point is that it is still an internal combustion engine....

Well, to use your analogy, more to the point, at some time, doesn't one have to admit that there may be something better than the internal combustion engine and use that instead?

And, fwiw, I have one child. Do you really think I should have to pay the same as someone who has three? or five? or seven? etc...

You see...where you all fail to see what's going on is right here.....What you are buying from the insurance companies is a SET AMOUNT of lifetime coverage...i.e. $1,000,000.00

If you have 8 kids...your 1 mil is gone a lot sooner than a person with one kid.


What part of "CAP" is everyone misunderstanding?
so yes..it's fair for a familiy with one child to pay the same as a family with 8 kids.

 

[RadiomanATL]

I'm younger than my co-worker. And married. So I should pay less than a senior bachelor because they are a higher risk according to the statistical tables.

Everytime you add a layer of unique situation coverage for group plans, admin costs go up. Which means premiums go up. Self defeating.

 

[chanel]

Exactly. It would get too complicated. A family with four children may actually be healthier and LESS costly to an insurer than an older individual with a history of cancer. Group policies divvy up the risk.

 

[RadiomanATL]

So why can't an employer, who happens to have employees with small families, even find an insurance provider who offers a per child rate?

I'm sure your employer could request a unique benefits package based on such a plan.

But I guarantee that the rates would be much, much higher than the current one you have. The administration costs would be much higher for such a group coverage plan.

Mass produced cars are cheap. Specifically and uniquely built ones are expensive.

What makes you so sure?

What makes you think that if competition were alive and well in the insurance market there wouldn't be a mass market for insurance with a per child rate?

How can you 'guarantee' such a thing when the insurance industry has so successfully squelched such competition in their market place?

Because it would be more expensive than current plans.

 

[RadiomanATL]

The point is that it is still an internal combustion engine....

Well, to use your analogy, more to the point, at some time, doesn't one have to admit that there may be something better than the internal combustion engine and use that instead?

And, fwiw, I have one child. Do you really think I should have to pay the same as someone who has three? or five? or seven? etc...

You see...where you all fail to see what's going on is right here.....What you are buying from the insurance companies is a SET AMOUNT of lifetime coverage...i.e. $1,000,000.00

If you have 8 kids...your 1 mil is gone a lot sooner than a person with one kid.


What part of "CAP" is everyone misunderstanding?
so yes..it's fair for a familiy with one child to pay the same as a family with 8 kids.

Forgot about that.

Yer right. The policies have a "family lifetime limit". A larger family would hit that wall a whole lot quicker than a smaller family.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

I'm younger than my co-worker. And married. So I should pay less than a senior bachelor because they are a higher risk according to the statistical tables.

Everytime you add a layer of unique situation coverage for group plans, admin costs go up. Which means premiums go up. Self defeating.

Not so. You bought a $1,000,000 policy just like the senior bachelor. Now if you engage in risky behavior like smoking, drinking heavily and promiscuity...then there are premium adjustments.

 

[RadiomanATL]

I'm younger than my co-worker. And married. So I should pay less than a senior bachelor because they are a higher risk according to the statistical tables.

Everytime you add a layer of unique situation coverage for group plans, admin costs go up. Which means premiums go up. Self defeating.

Not so. You bought a $1,000,000 policy just like the senior bachelor.

Bought the same plan, but the insurance company will likely pay out more for him than it does for me.

Either way, it's a dumb idea that would be too expensive to administer.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

What about when you get old?...and you are right...it's a statistical fact that 80% of your coverage limits are used up in the last few years of your life

 

[AVG-JOE]

The point is that it is still an internal combustion engine....

Well, to use your analogy, more to the point, at some time, doesn't one have to admit that there may be something better than the internal combustion engine and use that instead?

And, fwiw, I have one child. Do you really think I should have to pay the same as someone who has three? or five? or seven? etc...

You don't have to pay anything. You can always opt out of your employers plan and get an individual one.

But you can't opt out and get the money your employer pays on your behalf.

The current insurance rules and method of distribution pretty much remove that option from the table for most Americans. Not to mention the insurance companies handing your employer a method of keeping you employed that does not involve working conditions at your job.

Would it be better if we had slightly bigger pay checks and bought health coverage the way we buy auto coverage? There seems to be a hell of a lot more competition in the auto market...