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.
How can insurance co's survive when people only sign up when they're sick?
ANSWER: they won't be able to game the system that way. Trust me. Do people here actually think they are coming up with some kind of secret way to save money? Enjoy your fantasy worlds.
Despite being instructed regarding this issue over and over again, you guys try to obfuscate it. The bill is meant to keep insurance companies from using a long-ago pre-existing condition to deny insurance ever again.
On Private insurance:
Imagine that the risk and financial responsibility for an injury or disease is a brick. Each person carries a certain number of bricks (the number is different for everyone) just because they are alive. Some people increase or decrease their own number of bricks by choosing to engage in risky activities (or not), or eating healthy (or not), or any of a thousand ways to increase or decrease their risk. It is the responsibility of each person to carry their own bricks. It is acceptable for someone to voluntarily carry some of another person's bricks. Now let us say that Joe gets the idea that he can earn money carrying bricks for another person. So he saves his own money (or gets other people to chip in) and buys a wheelbarrow. People then pay Joe to carry some of their bricks. Joe pays some of this money to fix (health care) the bricks that turn out to be bad (the illness or injury happened) and he keeps the rest of the money. The business model is:
"Joe carrys some of your bricks, you pay Joe for this service. If Joe is carrying one of your bad bricks, then Joe pays to fix it, if not, you pay to fix it. "
This is how private insurance works.
On denial of coverage:
If joe thinks some of your bricks are bad (you have high risk factors), then he may choose to charge you more to carry those bricks, or refuse to carry those bricks at all, because his service is voluntary.
On preexisting conditions:
If one of the bricks you are still carrying is bad, it is not Joe's responsibility to pay to fix that brick. If you knowingly give Joe a bad brick (preexisting condition), then he is not responsible for paying to fix it.
On the health care industry:
Tom has a business repairing bad bricks (providing health care). It cost him a certain amount for supplies (facilities, insurance and staff) to fix bricks. He charges a certain amount for certain repairs, pays for the supplies, and keeps the rest as profit.
On medical repricing:
Now, since Joe sees a lot of bricks, and has to visit Tom, the brick fixer, he makes a voluntary deal with Tom to give him a volume discount on his's services. Since Joe is a good customer and brings in lots of business, Tom agrees to charge him at a lower rate. Tom even gets the idea to offer this discount to other people directly, in exchange for a small regular fee. He is trading occasional high profit for a steady lower Profit.
On the uninsured or self insured:
Suzie decides that she does not want Joe's services. She earns enough money to put aside some of it to pay for fixing her own bad bricks (she is self insured).
Frank cannot afford to pay anyone to carry his bricks (he is uninsured), so if he has a bad brick, he will have to pay to have that brick fixed. We will assume that it is not frank's fault that his brick broke, and no one else broke his brick (if they had, they would have to pay to fix it).
Identifying the problem:
If frank can afford to pay to fix his brick, who's responsibility is it to pay for it?
If Frank cannot pay, who's responsibility is it?
If the answers to these questions are different, then why did the responsibility shift?
Explain the rationale behind your answer.
I think our problem is finding a way to make sure Frank has a way to fix his bricks, without being unfair to you, Joe, Tom, or Suzie.
Finding a solution:
There are several ways to make sure that Frank gets his brick fixed, each has differing levels of fairness for the others involved. All are, by definition, "fair" to Frank because he has not contributed at all toward fixing the brick.
George is tasked with finding the optimal solution to this problem.
How, in your opinion, should George make sure Frank's brick got fixed, while being as fair as possible to you, Joe, Tom and Suzie?
Joe carrys some of your bricks, you pay Joe for this service.
How does this Joe equate to insurance companies? Joe would be your doctor, not your insurance company.
It would be great to get rid of insurance companies for all but major services (as it is in many other countries). People pay directly to doctor for the services. How's that? And how does this Joe of yours fit in?
Middlemen in health care are just businessmen, not providing any service but helping push the system into a downward spiral where affordability is becoming impossible while they get their cut along the way.
This story also applies to my dog's veterinarian. I used to take her to a clinic where virtually everybody carried pet insurance, and something as basic as teeth cleaning cost $800. At that place, I competed with insurance companies. Then I found a place, albeit a little over an hour drive in a small town, where services are surprisingly inexpensive, probably because insurance companies are likely out of picture. How about $100 for teeth cleaning? You bet.
This applies on a larger scale to the health care system here in America. Affordability is out because services are getting overly expensive. Sometimes it is better to travel to other countries for the same services, and have a vacation to go with it, and still get the job done in a fraction of what it would cost here. I actually know someone who did that, and if it comes down to it, I won't shy away from that option either.
The current system controlled by the health insurance corporations is a disaster, and is guaranteed to ruin what is left of this country if left running a muck.
As pointed out in another thread, the most likely version of Obamacare requires insurance companies to sign people up even if they have a "pre-existing condition"... and the plan levies a relatively small fine on people who don't carry insurance.
So it makes clear economic sense for people to drop their health insurance and pay the fine, until they actually get sick or injured. Then they can sign up to have insurance companies pay for their medical care, paying the normal premiums, stay until the problem is remedied, and then drop the insurance again.
My question is:
How can the insurance companies survive when more and more of their "customers" do this?
A company is practically guaranteed under this plan, to get almost no premium payments from their "customers". And only then if they are simultaneously paying out much higher amounts for the medical care that EVERY customer needs. Customers who don't need medical care, have dropped their insurance (until the next sickness or injury). Even if the govt sends them money from the fines, it is a much smaller amount than ordinary premiums would be.
Any way you look at it, the cash flow is negative. This plan pretty much guarantees that insurance companies always pay out more than they take in.
How, exactly, will these companies survive economically?
When I ask this, I often hear snarls of "Oh, you're on the insurance companies' side, eh?"... especially when the snarler cannot answer the questions.
Is this the ultimate "revenge of the liberals"? Where angry leftists get to legally damage (or destroy?) insurance companies they imagine have somehow wronged them? Without having to prove to anyone they've actually been harmed?
Obama doesn't want the insurance companies to survive. Once they all collapse, he (or his successor) will move toward single payer, universal health care coverage just like he has claimed all along he wants. It's all in the grand plan.
As pointed out in another thread, the most likely version of Obamacare requires insurance companies to sign people up even if they have a "pre-existing condition"... and the plan levies a relatively small fine on people who don't carry insurance.
So it makes clear economic sense for people to drop their health insurance and pay the fine, until they actually get sick or injured. Then they can sign up to have insurance companies pay for their medical care, paying the normal premiums, stay until the problem is remedied, and then drop the insurance again.
My question is:
How can the insurance companies survive when more and more of their "customers" do this?
A company is practically guaranteed under this plan, to get almost no premium payments from their "customers". And only then if they are simultaneously paying out much higher amounts for the medical care that EVERY customer needs. Customers who don't need medical care, have dropped their insurance (until the next sickness or injury). Even if the govt sends them money from the fines, it is a much smaller amount than ordinary premiums would be.
Any way you look at it, the cash flow is negative. This plan pretty much guarantees that insurance companies always pay out more than they take in.
How, exactly, will these companies survive economically?
When I ask this, I often hear snarls of "Oh, you're on the insurance companies' side, eh?"... especially when the snarler cannot answer the questions.
Is this the ultimate "revenge of the liberals"? Where angry leftists get to legally damage (or destroy?) insurance companies they imagine have somehow wronged them? Without having to prove to anyone they've actually been harmed?
I thought it was *you* guys who were trying to figure out an angle to buy when you're sick, cancel when you're well... not the "liberals" in town.
if everybody signs on, then the well people carry the sick. if insurance is optional and insurance companies just cover well clients then many will suffer and die.
Obama doesn't want the insurance companies to survive. Once they all collapse, he (or his successor) will move toward single payer, universal health care coverage just like he has claimed all along he wants. It's all in the grand plan.
Obama doesn't want the insurance companies to survive. Once they all collapse, he (or his successor) will move toward single payer, universal health care coverage just like he has claimed all along he wants. It's all in the grand plan.
This just sounds like, "You don't WANT me to have a good time! You HATE me, WAAAAAH!"
How can insurance co's survive when people only sign up when they're sick?
Why should I answer the question when it has no merit? You can weep for the insurance companies all you want; I have no love lost for them.
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.
