Insurance company executive refers to high-cost patients as ‘dogs.’

[Varth Dader]

There is no "private option." It is called a "market."
And better the devil you know than the devil you dont.

I disagree. Logic like that encourages us to support crazy and homicidal dictators because the supposed alternative is worse.

As for the market, there is no market for health insurance. There are only bills to be paid and a markup to be charged. Government should be in charge of a pool (i.e. public option) where markups are controlled.

 

[The Rabbi]

There is no "private option." It is called a "market."
And better the devil you know than the devil you dont.

I disagree. Logic like that encourages us to support crazy and homicidal dictators because the supposed alternative is worse.

As for the market, there is no market for health insurance. There are only bills to be paid and a markup to be charged. Government should be in charge of a pool (i.e. public option) where markups are controlled.

Really? I guess all those health care companies are spending advertising dollars to generate bills they have to pay and markups to be controlled.
Ya know, when you spout stupid stuff liek this it really destroys your credibility. Try it straight sometime. You might get something out of it.

 

[Varth Dader]

There is no "private option." It is called a "market."
And better the devil you know than the devil you dont.

I disagree. Logic like that encourages us to support crazy and homicidal dictators because the supposed alternative is worse.

As for the market, there is no market for health insurance. There are only bills to be paid and a markup to be charged. Government should be in charge of a pool (i.e. public option) where markups are controlled.

Really? I guess all those health care companies are spending advertising dollars to generate bills they have to pay and markups to be controlled.
Ya know, when you spout stupid stuff liek this it really destroys your credibility. Try it straight sometime. You might get something out of it.

An insurance company provides little if anything to the health care equation. They don't provide services, that's what doctors and nurses do. They can't really control who gets sick and what disease they get. All they do is take the doctor's bill, pay it and spread the cost onto all the insured. And of course, charge a markup for that.

Health care companies would rather, and it's logical, get rid of the members costing the most because they either lower their margins or increase the premiums of everyone else. So from their perspective, it makes sense to act as "death panels" and get rid of those people. Unfortunately, as a society, it's an equation we don't want to engage in. Or, if we engage in that, some amount of morality dictates that it shouldn't be only based on the size of one's pocketbook.

 

[The Rabbi]

I disagree. Logic like that encourages us to support crazy and homicidal dictators because the supposed alternative is worse.

As for the market, there is no market for health insurance. There are only bills to be paid and a markup to be charged. Government should be in charge of a pool (i.e. public option) where markups are controlled.

Really? I guess all those health care companies are spending advertising dollars to generate bills they have to pay and markups to be controlled.
Ya know, when you spout stupid stuff liek this it really destroys your credibility. Try it straight sometime. You might get something out of it.

An insurance company provides little if anything to the health care equation. They don't provide services, that's what doctors and nurses do. They can't really control who gets sick and what disease they get. All they do is take the doctor's bill, pay it and spread the cost onto all the insured. And of course, charge a markup for that.

Health care companies would rather, and it's logical, get rid of the members costing the most because they either lower their margins or increase the premiums of everyone else. So from their perspective, it makes sense to act as "death panels" and get rid of those people. Unfortunately, as a society, it's an equation we don't want to engage in. Or, if we engage in that, some amount of morality dictates that it shouldn't be only based on the size of one's pocketbook.

You can make the same statement about any insurance. Car insurers don't produce or fix cars. Home insurers dont build or sell homes.
That isn't what insurance is. Insurance is something that takes risks that you are not prepared to take. You could probably do without health insurance. But you are taking a tremendous risk in doing so. Some people take that risk. That's why there are a lot of uninsureds out there (there are also other reasons of course).
But insurers do not execute people, as your post implies. Nor do they drop people for claims, which btw is illegal in all 50 states. Nor do they increase premiums on people for making claims, which is also illegal in all 50 states.
But risk is a fact of life. That health care is expensive is also a fact of life. Health care is expensive for the same reason divorce is expensive: because it's worth it. Managing the financial risk of illness is what insurance companies do. ANd they do that better than the government is ever likely to.

 

[Varth Dader]

You can make the same statement about any insurance. Car insurers don't produce or fix cars. Home insurers dont build or sell homes.
That isn't what insurance is. Insurance is something that takes risks that you are not prepared to take. You could probably do without health insurance. But you are taking a tremendous risk in doing so. Some people take that risk. That's why there are a lot of uninsureds out there (there are also other reasons of course).
But insurers do not execute people, as your post implies. Nor do they drop people for claims, which btw is illegal in all 50 states. Nor do they increase premiums on people for making claims, which is also illegal in all 50 states.
But risk is a fact of life. That health care is expensive is also a fact of life. Health care is expensive for the same reason divorce is expensive: because it's worth it. Managing the financial risk of illness is what insurance companies do. ANd they do that better than the government is ever likely to.

You are right, the same can be said about any insurance, but health insurance is quite different that other insurance. First, everybody needs it -- because the underlying need is the need for medical care. The same cannot be said about all forms of insurance. What is at stake is totally different.

The other difference is that this type of insurance is more complex. When you destroy your car and other property in an accident, my guess is that the damage is more circumscribed. Health care, on the other hand, can be a never ending proposition (consider the recuring costs of someone needing constant medical treatment vs the cost of replacing a car or a building).

And anyways, in some places, some part of auto insurance is handled by the state at a much lower cost. For example, in the province of Quebec, government insures everyone for bodily injuries. Why? Because they calculated that the amount of money wasted on legal fees for bodily harm was so big that it was financially better to get everyone covered regardless of who was at fault, what coverage they had, etc. Trial lawyers aren't happy, but too bad so sad...

As for the risk you are describing, it's a risk that the rest of society has to cover, because unpaid medical bills are paid by everyone else. And since we aren't ready (yet) to let people die at the doorsteps of hospital, it seems better to just get those people officially insured. Plus, families having to go bankrupt for medical bills, because they took the risks you describe, still costs society as a whole.

Insurers increase premiums through all sorts of ways. Heck in the worst case they decide to cancel entire groups of policies like the company did in NY. Plus, you implicitely approve of this model where there are dozens and dozens of risk pools, when in reality there should only be one risk pool from coast to coast. What purpose does it serve that company X have a different risk pool than company Y?

I forgot a "Shabat Shalom"!

 

[The Rabbi]

No, health insurance is not different. It is all about pricing risk. Plenty of people have and do go withouthealth insurance for all kinds of reasons. Arguably someone in his early 20s probably doesnt need it, or needs only a catastrophic policy.
And homeowners is there for as long as you own the house.
This is one of the problems with the debate: people forget what insurance is and so they end up saying stupid things. Truthfully a lot of the problem is the present system encourages people to have too much insurance. So going to the doctor becomes "free" in teh sense that they are not paying for it out of their pockets. Most insurance is provided by employers, and people dont see the premiums that could have been paid out to them.

And gut voch to you.

 

[Varth Dader]

No, health insurance is not different. It is all about pricing risk. Plenty of people have and do go withouthealth insurance for all kinds of reasons. Arguably someone in his early 20s probably doesnt need it, or needs only a catastrophic policy.
And homeowners is there for as long as you own the house.
This is one of the problems with the debate: people forget what insurance is and so they end up saying stupid things. Truthfully a lot of the problem is the present system encourages people to have too much insurance. So going to the doctor becomes "free" in teh sense that they are not paying for it out of their pockets. Most insurance is provided by employers, and people dont see the premiums that could have been paid out to them.

And gut voch to you.

Again, I don't see why you need to create a plethora of risk pools.

Why should a 20 year old not need health insurance? Simply because a 20 year old is less likely to be sick. The recent case about the young girl that died of the H1N1 virus is a great example of why everybody should have access, not the reverse.

As for people not seeing the premiums, I guess it won't make much of a difference with or without a private option.

 

[The Rabbi]

No, health insurance is not different. It is all about pricing risk. Plenty of people have and do go withouthealth insurance for all kinds of reasons. Arguably someone in his early 20s probably doesnt need it, or needs only a catastrophic policy.
And homeowners is there for as long as you own the house.
This is one of the problems with the debate: people forget what insurance is and so they end up saying stupid things. Truthfully a lot of the problem is the present system encourages people to have too much insurance. So going to the doctor becomes "free" in teh sense that they are not paying for it out of their pockets. Most insurance is provided by employers, and people dont see the premiums that could have been paid out to them.

And gut voch to you.

Again, I don't see why you need to create a plethora of risk pools.

Why should a 20 year old not need health insurance? Simply because a 20 year old is less likely to be sick. The recent case about the young girl that died of the H1N1 virus is a great example of why everybody should have access, not the reverse.

As for people not seeing the premiums, I guess it won't make much of a difference with or without a private option.

I dont. Insurance companies create them, I dont know why. Of course if you allowed people to purchase insurance across state lines they could increase the size of the pools, spreading the risk ad decreasing costs. But the Dums won't touch that.
People age 20 or so tend to live very healthy lives and dont require hospitalization or expensive treatments. You have cited one case in about 100M, proof that one doesn't really need health insurance at that age.

 

[Varth Dader]

I dont. Insurance companies create them, I dont know why. Of course if you allowed people to purchase insurance across state lines they could increase the size of the pools, spreading the risk ad decreasing costs. But the Dums won't touch that.
People age 20 or so tend to live very healthy lives and dont require hospitalization or expensive treatments. You have cited one case in about 100M, proof that one doesn't really need health insurance at that age.

The problem with opening up state lines is that you could have yet another race to the bottom, i.e. the worst state dictating the rules.

As for the people aged 20 or so, then in reality it's not that they don't need it, it's that they won't use it. So theoritically covering them is a cheap proposition, and this way they will get the care they need in the (rare?) cases they do.

 

[The Rabbi]

I dont. Insurance companies create them, I dont know why. Of course if you allowed people to purchase insurance across state lines they could increase the size of the pools, spreading the risk ad decreasing costs. But the Dums won't touch that.
People age 20 or so tend to live very healthy lives and dont require hospitalization or expensive treatments. You have cited one case in about 100M, proof that one doesn't really need health insurance at that age.

The problem with opening up state lines is that you could have yet another race to the bottom, i.e. the worst state dictating the rules.

As for the people aged 20 or so, then in reality it's not that they don't need it, it's that they won't use it. So theoritically covering them is a cheap proposition, and this way they will get the care they need in the (rare?) cases they do.

Worst state? You mean the one with the cheapest rates, right? Why is that a race to teh bottom? SOunds like a race to the top for the consumer (remember him?).
If they won't use health insurance then they dont need it. Insurance is there to cover adverse events. If they have no adverse events then the money is essentially wasted.

 

[Varth Dader]

I dont. Insurance companies create them, I dont know why. Of course if you allowed people to purchase insurance across state lines they could increase the size of the pools, spreading the risk ad decreasing costs. But the Dums won't touch that.
People age 20 or so tend to live very healthy lives and dont require hospitalization or expensive treatments. You have cited one case in about 100M, proof that one doesn't really need health insurance at that age.

The problem with opening up state lines is that you could have yet another race to the bottom, i.e. the worst state dictating the rules.

As for the people aged 20 or so, then in reality it's not that they don't need it, it's that they won't use it. So theoritically covering them is a cheap proposition, and this way they will get the care they need in the (rare?) cases they do.

Worst state? You mean the one with the cheapest rates, right? Why is that a race to teh bottom? SOunds like a race to the top for the consumer (remember him?).
If they won't use health insurance then they dont need it. Insurance is there to cover adverse events. If they have no adverse events then the money is essentially wasted.

I'm having a hard time understanding the numbers behind what you are saying. If the chances of having an adverse event are low, it means that the cost of the insurance should also be low. So using that logic, why shouldn't we at least provide coverage to those people since the cost of coverage for those people should be really low?

If we really charge people according to the risk they represent, young people should be able to get coverage for pennies.

 

[Varth Dader]

By the way, I think the formula is relatively simple here. Cost of coverage for pool X = (expected sum of all claims * premium). My point is that the more you create smaller pool, the more people in the pool are at risk of larger fluctuations. Which is why I think there should just be one pool nationwide, this way risks are distributed across all americans.

 

[The Rabbi]

The problem with opening up state lines is that you could have yet another race to the bottom, i.e. the worst state dictating the rules.

As for the people aged 20 or so, then in reality it's not that they don't need it, it's that they won't use it. So theoritically covering them is a cheap proposition, and this way they will get the care they need in the (rare?) cases they do.

Worst state? You mean the one with the cheapest rates, right? Why is that a race to teh bottom? SOunds like a race to the top for the consumer (remember him?).
If they won't use health insurance then they dont need it. Insurance is there to cover adverse events. If they have no adverse events then the money is essentially wasted.

I'm having a hard time understanding the numbers behind what you are saying. If the chances of having an adverse event are low, it means that the cost of the insurance should also be low. So using that logic, why shouldn't we at least provide coverage to those people since the cost of coverage for those people should be really low?

If we really charge people according to the risk they represent, young people should be able to get coverage for pennies.

But they tend to make profit on all those policies. It is like airtravel insurance. It costs next to nothing because the chances of it paying out are minimal. Yet companies like it because it's a big money maker.
Why should we provide coverage to anyone? None of it is free.

 

[The Rabbi]

By the way, I think the formula is relatively simple here. Cost of coverage for pool X = (expected sum of all claims * premium). My point is that the more you create smaller pool, the more people in the pool are at risk of larger fluctuations. Which is why I think there should just be one pool nationwide, this way risks are distributed across all americans.

Which would tend to suggest that polciies ought to be availabel across state lines.

 

[DiveCon]

By the way, I think the formula is relatively simple here. Cost of coverage for pool X = (expected sum of all claims * premium). My point is that the more you create smaller pool, the more people in the pool are at risk of larger fluctuations. Which is why I think there should just be one pool nationwide, this way risks are distributed across all americans.

Which would tend to suggest that polciies ought to be availabel across state lines.

that would increase the risk pool

 

[Varth Dader]

By the way, I think the formula is relatively simple here. Cost of coverage for pool X = (expected sum of all claims * premium). My point is that the more you create smaller pool, the more people in the pool are at risk of larger fluctuations. Which is why I think there should just be one pool nationwide, this way risks are distributed across all americans.

Which would tend to suggest that polciies ought to be availabel across state lines.

that would increase the risk pool

Yes, it's called a federally run health insurance program. Or "the public option".

If you allow policies to run across state lines without getting an opt-in from states, it seems to me that the federal government should dictate a strong minimum plan. If you are going to prevent states from exercising control about what is or isn't in a plan, then there should at least be a great floor.

 

[DiveCon]

Which would tend to suggest that polciies ought to be availabel across state lines.

that would increase the risk pool

Yes, it's called a federally run health insurance program. Or "the public option".

If you allow policies to run across state lines without getting an opt-in from states, it seems to me that the federal government should dictate a strong minimum plan. If you are going to prevent states from exercising control about what is or isn't in a plan, then there should at least be a great floor.

no, that would be called "healthcare reform"
not what you assholes want

the "floor" as you call it, should be set by those wanting to purchase

 

[xsited1]

Think Progress » Insurance company executive refers to high-cost patients as ‘dogs.’





...

$1 million a year for treatment would be rationed in a country with socialized medicine. They simply could not afford it for one person.

Which is why they cut off anyone with even a mild case of this illness.

If insurance is only for people NOT sick and who DON'T get sick, then why is it called "insurance"?

How can Republicans defend this? How is it possible?

It's easy to defend since the payouts are extreme. As I mentioned in my post, you wouldn't see this in a country with socialized medicine. The patient is just too expensive for the common good.

 

[xsited1]

Think Progress » Insurance company executive refers to high-cost patients as ‘dogs.’





...

$1 million a year for treatment would be rationed in a country with socialized medicine. They simply could not afford it for one person.

CAN YOU SAY STEPHEN HAWKING????? Who has had NH in the UK and the freedom to buy a supplement?

Basic care from the public option and then the companies are free to compete for the "supplemental" business, kinda like Medicare and then in comes MEDI-GAP, who KNOW the clientele is older, frailer, and so on and so on and so on! Funny how competing for scraps after Medicare has not bothered the insurance companies very much!

Stephen Hawking's care was never this expensive. Besides, he's one of the greatest minds in the world today. Countries with socialized medicine will ration the care depending on how valuable the person is to society.

 

[Varth Dader]

no, that would be called "healthcare reform"
not what you assholes want

the "floor" as you call it, should be set by those wanting to purchase

Hell no. The floor (minimum coverage) should be set by the government to not allow a race to the bottom.