Small Families Subsidizing Large Families.

[RadiomanATL]

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

Live fast, die young.

 

[xotoxi]

Do you think that a discount for buying in bulk is fair?

 

[RadiomanATL]

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.

So?

You can't opt out of the 401k and get the percentage that the employer would pay towards that if you were enrolled either.

Don't like the benefits package, get a different job.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Do you think that a discount for buying in bulk is fair?

Sure.

It costs the insurance company less, so why not pass on that savings to the end user.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Do you think that a discount for buying in bulk is fair?

Yes...it's called an HMO.

 

[AVG-JOE]

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.

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.

So what you guys are saying is that we would get the most cost effective coverage if we could assemble a very large 'group' and every member of that 'group' paid the same, based on the overall risk to that 'group' based on statistics?

 

[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.

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.

So what you guys are saying is that we would get the most cost effective coverage if we could assemble a very large 'group' and every member of that 'group' paid the same, based on the overall risk to that 'group' based on statistics?

Well, you just described how it works....

 

[AVG-JOE]

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.

What do you do with a family that has the bad luck to have 2 children with leukemia?

Which child dies?

 

[AVG-JOE]

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.

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.

So what you guys are saying is that we would get the most cost effective coverage if we could assemble a very large 'group' and every member of that 'group' paid the same, based on the overall risk to that 'group' based on statistics?

Well, you just described how it works....

So..... the bigger the group, the more efficient the administration and the lower the cost, eh?

 

[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.

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.

So what you guys are saying is that we would get the most cost effective coverage if we could assemble a very large 'group' and every member of that 'group' paid the same, based on the overall risk to that 'group' based on statistics?

Yes...that's why it's already called "insurance". This is the entire premise that insurance companies already operate under.

 

[RadiomanATL]

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.

What do you do with a family that has the bad luck to have 2 children with leukemia?

Which child dies?

What if they broke their legs too. What if dad got lung cancer at THE SAME TIME (OMFG!!), and then momma got the incurable shits?


Sorry, I don't play hypotheticals.

 

[RadiomanATL]

So what you guys are saying is that we would get the most cost effective coverage if we could assemble a very large 'group' and every member of that 'group' paid the same, based on the overall risk to that 'group' based on statistics?

Well, you just described how it works....

So..... the bigger the group, the more efficient the administration and the lower the cost, eh?

Depends on the policy the client wants crafted for them.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

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.

What do you do with a family that has the bad luck to have 2 children with leukemia?

Which child dies?

Exactly what's happened already...some families have had to make that choice.

 

[AVG-JOE]

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.

What do you do with a family that has the bad luck to have 2 children with leukemia?

Which child dies?

What if they broke their legs too. What if dad got lung cancer at THE SAME TIME (OMFG!!), and then momma got the incurable shits?


Sorry, I don't play hypotheticals.

If the 'insurance' game is not about hypotheticals, then what is it about?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

So what you guys are saying is that we would get the most cost effective coverage if we could assemble a very large 'group' and every member of that 'group' paid the same, based on the overall risk to that 'group' based on statistics?

Well, you just described how it works....

So..... the bigger the group, the more efficient the administration and the lower the cost, eh?

I see where you're going with this...and I will only add this truth....anytime the government gets involved with anything the costs increase 10-fold.

 

[RadiomanATL]

What do you do with a family that has the bad luck to have 2 children with leukemia?

Which child dies?

What if they broke their legs too. What if dad got lung cancer at THE SAME TIME (OMFG!!), and then momma got the incurable shits?


Sorry, I don't play hypotheticals.

If the 'insurance' game is not about hypotheticals, then what is it about?

Hypothetically then, I am the richest man in the world and I don't care what kind of insurance you choose to purchase.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Well, you just described how it works....

So..... the bigger the group, the more efficient the administration and the lower the cost, eh?

Depends on the policy the client wants crafted for them.

So just assuming average coverage for the average Joe, the bigger the group the more cost effective the coverage?

 

[RadiomanATL]

So..... the bigger the group, the more efficient the administration and the lower the cost, eh?

Depends on the policy the client wants crafted for them.

So just assuming average coverage for the average Joe, the bigger the group the more cost effective the coverage?

...and you get the 1 child equals the same as 8 children. Which is what yer complaining about.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

So..... the bigger the group, the more efficient the administration and the lower the cost, eh?

Depends on the policy the client wants crafted for them.

So just assuming average coverage for the average Joe, the bigger the group the more cost effective the coverage?

No. Each person is purchasing a SET AMOUNT...A CAP...on coverage based on risk. Doesn't matter how many people buy it...each person still gets the same amount of coverage. Some insurance companies incur GREATER RISK by having lower premiums in order to attract customers.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Well, you just described how it works....

So..... the bigger the group, the more efficient the administration and the lower the cost, eh?

I see where you're going with this...and I will only add this truth....anytime the government gets involved with anything the costs increase 10-fold.

Bullshit.

10 fold? Link please.

Social Security runs at an efficiency of 1.2% for disability and retirement insurance.

The best private insurance companies run at an efficiency of 22% to 25% - that statistic shows government involvement decreasing costs by more than 20 fold.

Social Security Online - The Official Website of the U.S. Social Security Administration