Twisted Thinking on Health Insurance

[DGS49]

Two people want to purchase a half-million dollar term life insurance policy: one is a 65 year-old, overweight, male smoker, and the other is a 23 year old female professional soccer player. Should their premiums be the same?

A homeowner in Tucson wants to buy flood insurance; a homeowner in New Orleans, having a house of equal value, also wants to buy flood insurance (ignore the impact of Federal subsidies). Should their premiums be the same?

A household with two cars and three teenage boys between the ages of 16 and 19 needs car insurance. Another household - two retired people - own identical cars, and also needs car insurance, same coverage. Should their premiums be the same?

These hypotheticals have obvious answers because people generally understand that insurance providers set their rates according to the "risk profiles" of their customers.

But when the discussion turns to health insurance, somehow these obvious and common-sense principles are supposed to the thrown out the window. It is unfair, we are told, that people in their sixties should pay more for health insurance than people in their 30’s, even though we know that the older people will generally have many times more healthcare expenses than the young people – who in fact may have NO healthcare expenses at all, since many young people never see a doctor for years on end.


Same for people with expensive pre-existing conditions.


Are people just stupid, or so fucking selfish that they refuse to see reality?

 

[Cellblock2429]

View attachment 135058

Two people want to purchase a half-million dollar term life insurance policy: one is a 65 year-old, overweight, male smoker, and the other is a 23 year old female professional soccer player. Should their premiums be the same?

A homeowner in Tucson wants to buy flood insurance; a homeowner in New Orleans, having a house of equal value, also wants to buy flood insurance (ignore the impact of Federal subsidies). Should their premiums be the same?

A household with two cars and three teenage boys between the ages of 16 and 19 needs car insurance. Another household - two retired people - own identical cars, and also needs car insurance, same coverage. Should their premiums be the same?

These hypotheticals have obvious answers because people generally understand that insurance providers set their rates according to the "risk profiles" of their customers.

But when the discussion turns to health insurance, somehow these obvious and common-sense principles are supposed to the thrown out the window. It is unfair, we are told, that people in their sixties should pay more for health insurance than people in their 30’s, even though we know that the older people will generally have many times more healthcare expenses than the young people – who in fact may have NO healthcare expenses at all, since many young people never see a doctor for years on end.


Same for people with expensive pre-existing conditions.


Are people just stupid, or so fucking selfish that they refuse to see reality?

/---- I say they are just plain old selfish

 

[Penelope]

Two people want to purchase a half-million dollar term life insurance policy: one is a 65 year-old, overweight, male smoker, and the other is a 23 year old female professional soccer player. Should their premiums be the same?

A homeowner in Tucson wants to buy flood insurance; a homeowner in New Orleans, having a house of equal value, also wants to buy flood insurance (ignore the impact of Federal subsidies). Should their premiums be the same?

A household with two cars and three teenage boys between the ages of 16 and 19 needs car insurance. Another household - two retired people - own identical cars, and also needs car insurance, same coverage. Should their premiums be the same?

These hypotheticals have obvious answers because people generally understand that insurance providers set their rates according to the "risk profiles" of their customers.

But when the discussion turns to health insurance, somehow these obvious and common-sense principles are supposed to the thrown out the window. It is unfair, we are told, that people in their sixties should pay more for health insurance than people in their 30’s, even though we know that the older people will generally have many times more healthcare expenses than the young people – who in fact may have NO healthcare expenses at all, since many young people never see a doctor for years on end.


Same for people with expensive pre-existing conditions.


Are people just stupid, or so fucking selfish that they refuse to see reality?

That is why the young need to be insured, esp when young and healthy, balances out. The young also get CA,PG, MS, DM, etc. and have accidents. No one knows the day or hour it can happen.

 

[Ringel05]

Two people want to purchase a half-million dollar term life insurance policy: one is a 65 year-old, overweight, male smoker, and the other is a 23 year old female professional soccer player. Should their premiums be the same?

A homeowner in Tucson wants to buy flood insurance; a homeowner in New Orleans, having a house of equal value, also wants to buy flood insurance (ignore the impact of Federal subsidies). Should their premiums be the same?

A household with two cars and three teenage boys between the ages of 16 and 19 needs car insurance. Another household - two retired people - own identical cars, and also needs car insurance, same coverage. Should their premiums be the same?

These hypotheticals have obvious answers because people generally understand that insurance providers set their rates according to the "risk profiles" of their customers.

But when the discussion turns to health insurance, somehow these obvious and common-sense principles are supposed to the thrown out the window. It is unfair, we are told, that people in their sixties should pay more for health insurance than people in their 30’s, even though we know that the older people will generally have many times more healthcare expenses than the young people – who in fact may have NO healthcare expenses at all, since many young people never see a doctor for years on end.


Same for people with expensive pre-existing conditions.


Are people just stupid, or so fucking selfish that they refuse to see reality?

Politics and so called "common sense" are often two completely different things and never the two shall meet. Of course "common sense" is often subjective, one man's heaven is another man's hell.
The reality is millions of people benefited from Medicaid expansion, if Medicaid expansion is eliminated, if the ban on pre-existing conditions is eliminated it's highly likely the GOP will cut their own collective throats and they're be a major backlash at the polls.
I'm not saying this because I believe in Obama care, I'm saying it because it's a highly likely politically outcome based on realistic observation.
Yes, people really are "so fucking selfish" as you put it, that's a fact of life.

 

[beagle9]

In this country it should be required that the young participate whether they need it or not. The rate should be very affordable for them, and then there would be no resistance by them for wanting to contribute or be covered themselves as it would just be a given or acceptable thing (the norm again). The money by percentage of, should then be allocated for the older risk pools that which exist among the seniors in order to keep their rates affordable as well. Everybody wins. Then it's important that the healthcare or medical industry offer up quality products to the consumers through their Healthcare providers in which keeps everyone involved happy, healthy, and covered. No more going broke because of Healthcare or health issues, and no more deciding at what point should a patient be given up on all due to money issues. Healthcare should be made a right in this country, and not be considered as a privilege. Why ?? Because no human suffering should be caused because someone can't afford to pay or that their coverage is any less valued than another human beings is. It's a moral issue is what it is, and a very real moral issue at that. No one should be given up on unless a doctor determines that a patient is terminal, and that determination not be based on money but upon the medical results that gives that diagnosis, and again not being based upon money. If we all voluntarily participate, then there would be no excuse for what has been going on in the idustries regarding the matter. The reason Obama and the Demon-crats figured they had to put in the mandate, was because they knew that the product being offered on different levels was not going to be agreed upon by those who couldn't afford a better product, but wondered why their Healthcare was to be any less than that of another ? Class warfare shouldn't be the issue in American Healthcare, as we should treat human beings the same when it comes to applying life saving treatments to them.

 

[dblack]

Are people just stupid, or so fucking selfish that they refuse to see reality?

Some are stupid. Most are just busy with their lives and don't give much thought to these issues outside what the various PR engines tell them.

 

[dblack]

Why ?? Because no human suffering should be caused because someone can't afford to pay or that their coverage is any less valued than another human beings is. It's a moral issue is what it is, and a very real moral issue at that. No one should be given up on unless a doctor determines that a patient is terminal, and that determination not be based on money but upon the medical results that gives that diagnosis, and again not being based upon money.

You, and everyone who thinks this way, really need to understand how dangerously delusional this claim is.

Let's take a recent example. I don't know if you followed it, but there was a thread here discussing a hemophiliac child that required a million dollars a month in medical care to stay alive. By your reasoning, society should pull out all the stops to keep this kid alive. But we can't do that without depriving someone else of money they might need to survive. Imagine that you are responsible for the single-payer program in your state. For discussion purposes, let's say the current monthly budget of your program is two million dollars. You have 11 really sick kids on your hands. First, there's the kid who needs a million a month. Then there are 10 kids who each need 200K a month. What's the moral thing to do in this case?

 

[miketx]

Flood insurance should not be available where morons have knowingly built homes in an area guaranteed to flood.

 

[dblack]

Flood insurance should not be available where morons have knowingly built homes in an area guaranteed to flood.

Why not? If there is a moronic insurance company willing to write them a policy, have it it!

 

[boedicca]

Insurance isn't health care. The sooner we separate prepaid health care services from Real Catastrophic Insurance, the better.

 

[miketx]

Flood insurance should not be available where morons have knowingly built homes in an area guaranteed to flood.

Why not? If there is a moronic insurance company willing to write them a policy, have it it!

There it is! Why liberals ruin anything they touch! If you're stupid enough to build where it floods, it's on YOU!

 

[beagle9]

Why ?? Because no human suffering should be caused because someone can't afford to pay or that their coverage is any less valued than another human beings is. It's a moral issue is what it is, and a very real moral issue at that. No one should be given up on unless a doctor determines that a patient is terminal, and that determination not be based on money but upon the medical results that gives that diagnosis, and again not being based upon money.

You, and everyone who thinks this way, really need to understand how dangerously delusional this claim is.

Let's take a recent example. I don't know if you followed it, but there was a thread here discussing a hemophiliac child that required a million dollars a month in medical care to stay alive. By your reasoning, society should pull out all the stops to keep this kid alive. But we can't do that without depriving someone else of money they might need to survive. Imagine that you are responsible for the single-payer program in your state. For discussion purposes, let's say the current monthly budget of your program is two million dollars. You have 11 really sick kids on your hands. First, there's the kid who needs a million a month. Then there are 10 kids who each need 200K a month. What's the moral thing to do in this case?

. Listen, you are going right to the heart of the problem... There isn't any medical procedure ever worth that kind of money, just like Boeing trying to charge what they were trying to charge for Air Force One until Trump stopped that overcharging bullcrap also. There is a serious overcharging of goods and services in this country, but that is somehow supposed to go on without a care, just like people dying is now going on without a care over money. Sad situation. No way should the boy's life be seen as a commodity or product in life, so your analysis cuts right to what we are now dealing with in America. If have the ability to save a life, then can a price be put on that life in respect to him living or dying when there is a treatment that keeps him alive, and who is it that will be putting that price on the boy's life ???

 

[beagle9]

Flood insurance should not be available where morons have knowingly built homes in an area guaranteed to flood.

. Should be available to those who build to code in an area prone to flood (house on raised stilts), and it should be available to those who didn't build to code, but only at a price that reflects that situation (high premiums). Human suffering of the flesh is not comparable to a house floating away due to somebodies idiocy.

 

[dblack]

No way should the boy's life be seen as a commodity or product in life, so your analysis cuts right to what we are now dealing with in America. If have the ability to save a life, then can a price be put on that life in respect to him living or dying when there is a treatment that keeps him alive, and who is it that will be putting that price on the boy's life ???

THAT's question alright. Should we determine value via a free market, or government mandate?