Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What's the point of being under a group policy if individuals are going to be rated separately?
The privacy issue could be averted by the company giving an allowance to everybody and they would get their own policies.
Your medical information would then really only be between you and the insurance company.
Or, as set out above, buy your own if you don't like the terms your employer sets.
What's the point of being under a group policy if individuals are going to be rated separately?
The privacy issue could be averted by the company giving an allowance to everybody and they would get their own policies.
Your medical information would then really only be between you and the insurance company.
Geez, just when I thought I heard everything said about this, someone says something new/brilliant..
That is a great point.....how can you really call that a "group" policy, with all supposedly under the same actuary tables, if you can "cherry pick" who pays what?
I am not sure there is a name yet for that, as that is a new thing, and quite possibly won't hold up in the courts.....
Insurance underwriters cannot ever completely cover their losses. I would say that cherry picking the low hanging fruit(healthier people), and jacking up the remainder, is like a casino with one hand on the roulette wheel.
So, I take it, if someone comes down with bad health through a condition, with no fault of their own, they get jacked to a higher pay tranch?
The disorganized and unprofessional examples cited here are just that and should be seen in context. But genuinely properly conducted wellness screenings are enormously beneficial in ascertaining current health and future areas of concern.
Felix, they are, but people should do that under their free will, with their own physician, regardless of how or if they are covered....
You cannot coerce someone to perform a wellness check, handing over bodily fluids/vitals/DNA, anymore than you can force someone to be healthy/run/workout....
The only scenario that happens in is in the military....
"Leading U.S. CEOs, angered by the Obama administration's challenge to certain "workplace wellness" programs, are threatening to side with anti-Obamacare forces unless the government backs off, according to people familiar with the matter.
Major U.S. corporations have broadly supported President Barack Obama's healthcare reform despite concerns over several of its elements, largely because it included provisions encouraging the wellness programs.
The programs aim to control healthcare costs by reducing smoking, obesity, hypertension and other risk factors that can lead to expensive illnesses. A bipartisan provision in the 2010 healthcare reform law allows employers to reward workers who participate and penalize those who don't.
But recent lawsuits filed by the administration's Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), challenging the programs at Honeywell International and two smaller companies, have thrown the future of that part of Obamacare into doubt."
Geez, just when I thought I heard everything said about this, someone says something new/brilliant..
That is a great point.....how can you really call that a "group" policy, with all supposedly under the same actuary tables, if you can "cherry pick" who pays what?
I am not sure there is a name yet for that, as that is a new thing, and quite possibly won't hold up in the courts.....
Insurance underwriters cannot ever completely cover their losses. I would say that cherry picking the low hanging fruit(healthier people), and jacking up the remainder, is like a casino with one hand on the roulette wheel.
So, I take it, if someone comes down with bad health through a condition, with no fault of their own, they get jacked to a higher pay tranch?
It can get weird, and obviously unlawful....
This is not what is being discussed here. What is being discussed is different costs based on participating and doing what is healthy. If you don't take the appropriate tests your costs go up. This doesn't deal with rating people differently based on the results of that testing. Whole different issue...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
