RadiomanATL
Senior Member
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.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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
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.
Do you think that a discount for buying in bulk is fair?
Do you think that a discount for buying in bulk is fair?
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.
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, 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.
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....
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?
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?
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?
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?
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.
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?
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?
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..... 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?
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?
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.