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.
Jays- Great explanation. This was something that I didn't understand before.
Thanks, I hope that helped. Most people don't because who has the time to read 1,400 pages of boring?
On top of that, most people trust the government to give them the information they need, truthfully, and the www.healthreform.gov websites are not doing that.
The propaganda being displayed on their website is about as direct and truthful as the Bush administration was leading up to the Iraq war.
It's exhausting to think that regardless of who's in the Whitehouse, it's the same old ****. If it's not war and far right, it's a socialist far left.
If my most expensive person costs me $1 million dollars, and you cost me nothing because you haven't been to a doctor in 5 years, you offset the cost of that million dollar customer, and end up paying psychotically high prices since I have to charge you the same.
Auto liability insurance has worked like that for years. A lady who drives her car to church every Sunday pays exactly the same insurance rate as a commercial traveler who drives 50,000 miles a year.
Auto liability insurance has worked like that for years. A lady who drives her car to church every Sunday pays exactly the same insurance rate as a commercial traveler who drives 50,000 miles a year.
I did not know that. I have to assume it's for liability only? My rates were adjusted because of my commute on full coverage.
Auto liability insurance has worked like that for years. A lady who drives her car to church every Sunday pays exactly the same insurance rate as a commercial traveler who drives 50,000 miles a year.
Don't know what company you're with but any I've ever had do ask and consider average miles driven when rating.
To the op.
The thing that will 'get ya' is if you need to pay out some huge sum before you've had enough time to save it up.
For the same reason most people DO have insurance, whether they like paying for it or not,most people will NOT do what you propose because they aren't willing to take that gamble.
You can do some computations to see if you think it's worth it.
That's what insurance companies hire actuaries for and why they don't lose money
Don't know what company you're with but any I've ever had do ask and consider average miles driven when rating.
My company has a single exceptional rate class. If the vehicle is driven less than (I think) 5,000 miles a year, there is a discount of about 5%, which comes out to maybe 20 bucks a year. This would vary by state, since car insurance is subject to regulations under the state insurance commissions.
I recently sold my car, because I rarely used it, and my insurance in the last year literally cost me more than $20 a mile. It was nice to have a car available when needed, but not that nice.
What I want to know is why it seems like healthy individuals with no children are still going to get screwed. From what I understand of this law (and I'm sure my comprehension is limited), it looks like my sister - 30, single and no dependents, no employer-provided insurance, can't afford her own - will still have no chance of getting affordable insurance, even by 2014. Is anyone else getting this impression?
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,309 posts, read 38,774,074 times
Reputation: 7185
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmarie123
What is to stop me from saving money by paying the $700 fine each year, and then just waiting until I have a million dollar illness and signing up for health care at that point. They can't refuse me. I'll just wait to pay premiums until I am sick, and when I get better, I'll stop.
It's kinda like if my house burned down yesterday, and today I call for fire insurance and then they have to fix my house.
How will insurance companies stay in business?
Or is that the plan? They all go out of business and then we all have not choice but to actually all fall under government run health care?
There has been some speculation that this is an objective of the bill. If employers are placed in a position to choose between purchasing inflated policies for their employees or pay a nominal yearly fee per uninsured worker and shrug that burden to the government, then the stage is set to move in the direction of a single-payer system.
It is sure to be thoroughly trashed as an incredible flight of fancy by the right-wing nutter elements and may be eliminated as a concern when the bill is better understood, but its an interesting take that probably deserves investigation.
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,309 posts, read 38,774,074 times
Reputation: 7185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jays1983
Many insurance corporations pay between 70-90 cents on the dollar they receive from their insured. In the grand scheme of business, why is that a problem?
They may profit in the billions, but that has been driven by HUGE volume. How about we tax the **** out of oil to subsidize our healthcare instead? Maybe pharmaceuticals with their outrageous margins?
As I mentioned in another thread, none of this is making sense, unless of course, you are willing to accept that we are being lied to.
And no, us "doomsayers" are scared to death having government run healthcare. Look at the state of Medicaid, Social Security - Hell, they couldn't even successful run a ***** house in Nevada after they acquired it from delinquent taxes. I can't imagaine why anyone would want to expand health into the social sector. Reform can be done without doing that.
To the bolded portion: Why would that make any more sense than taxing insurance companies. If you look at the major oil companies, their margins are surprisingly thin but they are able to generate enormous amounts of money based on the scale of operations. Any profit is re-invested into exploration, R&D and infrastructure maintenance. "Taxing the **** out of oil" would really be deferring those ****y taxes to the broadest base of the revenue stream; which is you and me at the pump. Leave 'em alone.
"Taxing the **** out of oil" would really be deferring those ****y taxes to the broadest base of the revenue stream; which is you and me at the pump. .
Exactly. Whenever any entity incurs a tax, they just pass the cost of the tax along, until it finally reaches the person who cannot pass it along anymore. The bottom feeders. You and me. Those of us who have no power to pass our tax burden along to someone else are the ones who wind up paying every cent of the total tax revenues..
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.
