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.
I am against ColoradoCare is because according to the above link, it would cover ALL state residents. To emphasize, it does not say citizens, it says residents. I am against ANY measure that provides ANY freebies to any adult who is in this country illegally, although I do approve of vaccinations, basic care, and life-saving treatment for children. (I do not think that any child should suffer because of the actions of his or her parent.)
It also does not say how long someone would need to be a resident. I have learned that if it's not in writing, then promises or assurances are worth absolutely nothing.
And, no, I am definitely NOT a Trump supporter! (I am voting for Johnson.)
I agree with everything you posted except the last two paragraphs. Come see me in the p&o elections subforum sometime if you would.
I think the bigger issue is that we need to just accept the fact that the insurance model does NOT work for paying for healthcare.
Insurance is supposed to distribute risk among a large group of people. That's how it works.
But in order for the insurance model to work, the costs have to be relatively low and the risk has to be relatively low.
There's a reason why flood insurance is now through the federal government: It just reach a point where it was not profitable for the insurance companies to provide it anymore.
Healthcare is facing a similar problem.
I do not agree that the risk portfolio of an insurance company, taken as a whole, would preclude a well funded, well managed entity from providing flood insurance. However, the insurance industry has very good lobbyists... and they have convinced legislators to evaluate the profits and losses of their portfolios from a 'business line' perspective -- to me, this shows more volatility that exists in reality...
Healthcare isn't like say fire insurance. With fire insurance, the overall risk is very low and when something does happen, the costs is relatively very little.
But with health insurance, neither of these things are true.
replacement value in the home markets are not 'very little' from my perspective...
to illustrate this point -- a few years ago, my family experienced a flood scenario in a townhouse community. the flood occurred due to a community/HOA responsibility pipe failure...
the billing for the restoration work was significant...
EVERYONE is eventually going to get old and sick and frail and some of us are going to be struck down with debilitating illnesses at a young age that we will need lifetime care for.
And healthcare costs are out of this world. Yes, insurance companies negotiate them down, but they're still incredibly high and god help you if you go out of network.
The only way that insurance companies can do this is just to charge people an arm and a leg for insurance, and we have the choice of either not paying and relying on ER care and bankruptcy or paying it and putting a huge portion of our income in a ****ty system.
Personally, I think the answer is obvious: Single payer system that can strong arm costs down to a manageable point.
You just need someone who can go "$40,000 for a surgery? Hahahaha, that's cute. You'll get $4,000 and you'll thank me for it."And only the government can do that.
Do you believe that $4000 would cover both the direct and indirect costs, as well as a modest profit, associated with a procedure billed out at $40,000? How many folks would choose to practice medicine if the financial rewards would be limited to those attainable by other - less intensive - professional pursuits?
Looking here, the average cost is around $1000. States that have higher risks have higher costs -- like Louisiana and Oklahoma.
Considering from what I've read the average cost of a home is around $150/sq foot, so a 2,000 sq foot home would be 300k.
Using the mid-sized town I grew up in, it has 50,000 housing units. Assume maybe 1/4 of them are with any given insurance company that leaves you with 12,500 units. At an average of $1000/unit, it would cost 300 units to cover replacement of a single house. That means 12,500 units would cover the replacement costs of around 41 houses per year -- in a single mid-sized city.
Since these insurance companies are national and houses aren't destroyed every year, this does add up over time.
That's assuming those prices too -- I have a friend who lost a house in a flood three years back and the insurance paid for the replacement cost -- which was just over $120k for a 1400 sq foot house in the Chicago suburbs.
The issue becomes when people live in flood plains that flood often. They then "use" their insurance more often and the risk percentage is way up -- so the only way to cover this is to significantly increase their insurance or drop them all together.
Do you believe that $4000 would cover both the direct and indirect costs, as well as a modest profit, associated with a procedure billed out at $40,000? How many folks would choose to practice medicine if the financial rewards would be limited to those attainable by other - less intensive - professional pursuits?
How many expenses are frivolous, unnecessary and inflated? $20 for a pill of Tylenol? $800 just for a doctor to spend 5 minutes with you to look at an x-ray confirming you have a broken bone? $250 for me to go to get a prescription for antibiotics for an ear infection when they spend 3 minutes, look in my ear, take my temp and write the script?
There's little-to-no accountability in the medicine world right now in the US. Prices are at all-time highs and there's no competition nor incentive for prices to come down. As I stated above, it's not like I can go online and ask for the average cost for an x-ray and a cast for a broken arm and compare local doctors. Most won't give it to you until after they've seen you.
Considering from what I've read the average cost of a home is around $150/sq foot, so a 2,000 sq foot home would be 300k.
Using the mid-sized town I grew up in, it has 50,000 housing units. Assume maybe 1/4 of them are with any given insurance company that leaves you with 12,500 units. At an average of $1000/unit, it would cost 300 units to cover replacement of a single house. That means 12,500 units would cover the replacement costs of around 41 houses per year -- in a single mid-sized city.
Since these insurance companies are national and houses aren't destroyed every year, this does add up over time.
That's assuming those prices too -- I have a friend who lost a house in a flood three years back and the insurance paid for the replacement cost -- which was just over $120k for a 1400 sq foot house in the Chicago suburbs.
The issue becomes when people live in flood plains that flood often. They then "use" their insurance more often and the risk percentage is way up -- so the only way to cover this is to significantly increase their insurance or drop them all together.
I am not comprehending your position... the red highlight is the part I am having trouble with...
please elaborate...
to the point though -- are you saying folks should not be allowed live within the Mississippi river valley or other river deltas that have flooded periodically through history - at all, ever, basically? if you do not have affordable insurance available to a prospective homeowner in a location, I do not suspect that any lender would allow for a loan to be issued for the said unit of housing...
what about California with the earthquake potential?
what about Kansas and other tornado prone areas?
what about if you are close to a nuclear reactor, dam, or pipeline?
are those natural disaster or other incident prone locales OK to live in, according to your worldview?
I am not comprehending your position... the red highlight is the part I am having trouble with...
please elaborate...
to the point though -- are you saying folks should not be allowed live within the Mississippi river valley or other river deltas that have flooded periodically through history - at all, ever, basically? if you do not have affordable insurance available to a prospective homeowner in a location, I do not suspect that any lender would allow for a loan to be issued for the said unit of housing...
what about California with the earthquake potential?
what about Kansas and other tornado prone areas?
what about if you are close to a nuclear reactor, dam, or pipeline?
are those natural disaster or other incident prone locales OK to live in, according to your worldview?
Insurance is a highly calculated risk factor for both parties.
As an individual, I could pay $1000/year for 60 years and never cash in on any of my insurance. But if something does happen, the idea is my costs would be significantly less than if I didn't have insurance.
For insurance companies, they determine the risk based on a number of factors -- location, home construction, the neighborhood, age of the house etc. You see this in the price of the insurance offered. Tornado alley insurance is higher than the high plains in CO. The likelyhood of your house getting hit by a tornado is slim even in Tornado alley, but there is a higher risk percentage, so the price does go up.
At some point though, the risk becomes too high. It's one thing if a tornado happens to hit your house or a 100 year flood happens or a dam breaks or a drainage system overflows and water pours out. These aren't common and are unpredictable. But when you live in an area that consistently floods and causes damage on a somewhat regular basis, the carrying cost to have them as clients outweighs what they pay into the system.
sure I get that... insurance is risk sharing amongst a pool of stakeholders...
what is not making sense, is the notion that the insurance companies are not 'making it' financially,
over their entire portfolio of underwritten policies.
sure I get that... insurance is risk sharing amongst a pool of stakeholders...
what is not making sense, is the notion that the insurance companies are not 'making it' financially,
over their entire portfolio of underwritten policies.
how would you define a "somewhat regular basis"?
When it can be calculated. A chance of a Tornado hitting a house cannot be calculated. A chance of a floodplain can be calculated from historical data.
When it can be calculated. A chance of a Tornado hitting a house cannot be calculated. A chance of a floodplain can be calculated from historical data.
to me, this position is utter nonsense.
the fact that modeling exists for a given catastrophe only indicates our limited understanding of the science...
Do you believe that $4000 would cover both the direct and indirect costs, as well as a modest profit, associated with a procedure billed out at $40,000? How many folks would choose to practice medicine if the financial rewards would be limited to those attainable by other - less intensive - professional pursuits?
How many expenses are frivolous, unnecessary and inflated? $20 for a pill of Tylenol? $800 just for a doctor to spend 5 minutes with you to look at an x-ray confirming you have a broken bone? $250 for me to go to get a prescription for antibiotics for an ear infection when they spend 3 minutes, look in my ear, take my temp and write the script?
There's little-to-no accountability in the medicine world right now in the US. Prices are at all-time highs and there's no competition nor incentive for prices to come down. As I stated above, it's not like I can go online and ask for the average cost for an x-ray and a cast for a broken arm and compare local doctors. Most won't give it to you until after they've seen you.
If you really believe this, you are very ignorant of how health care financing works. There is a huge amount of government accountability. Hospitals are making cuts in staffing left and right to save money and make ends meet. The reason prices are ridiculously high is that nobody actually pays that price. If you are charged $100, your insurance company says they'll pay $60, the government says they'll pay $30, and some patients just blow off the bill and pay nothing.
If you really believe this, you are very ignorant of how health care financing works. There is a huge amount of government accountability. Hospitals are making cuts in staffing left and right to save money and make ends meet. The reason prices are ridiculously high is that nobody actually pays that price. If you are charged $100, your insurance company says they'll pay $60, the government says they'll pay $30, and some patients just blow off the bill and pay nothing.
There's no accountability in pricing as there's no real competition. If you need to get a procedure done, you can't shop around and most hospitals won't give you an upfront price. What other industry operates like this?
At the end, you're given a bill and are expected to pay for it. Is it $200? $800? $2000? Considering I need to hit $3000 before any insurance even kicks in, those prices DO matter to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eatsDEN
to me, this position is utter nonsense.
the fact that modeling exists for a given catastrophe only indicates our limited understanding of the science...
There's modeling for a given weather pattern, but it's impossible to predict if a single house on a single plot of land is going to be hit by a tornado.
There is zero chance of anyone predicting that those houses were going to be destroyed and the ones two streets down weren't.
Flooding -- you have historic data of areas that flood, how often they flood and how high flood waters are. That's an easily calculated risk.
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.
