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 makes you think this? Young adults are more likely to have accidents than older people. Why do you think that car insurance for a teenager up to twenty somethings are so high?
Look at hc costs for yougins compared to the over 55 crowd. Theres a lot more to it then car accidents.
Do you know what the leading cause of cancer is?
Your insurance premiums are going up because of the greed of the insurance companies, in otherwords they would have raised them anyway. You are not paying for anyone else's enrollment. Whenever there are more healthy people enrolled the cost goes down because they are less likely to be seen. It also prevents the ER's from being clogged up with people with colds and slight boo-boos and they now can focus on real emergencies
I've got 20 years experience working as an actuary....and I'm starting to weep for the innumeracy being shown here.
Here, lets try this.
You have 100 people that buy the family plan.
Average costs are 100,000 a year for the plan and the target loss ratio is 80%.
The purchasers of the family plan pay 100,000 / 100 / 0.8 = $1250.
You now add the older children and average costs go up by an average of 5,000 but you still only have 100 payers (like me).
Hence, my premium goes up to 105,000 / 100 / 0.8 = $1312.50
Your first sentence is ignorant propaganda.
Your second sentence is an incorrect application of math to the problem at hand and correct only if you do not charge fair rates to healthy young people and thus cost shift onto them which would cause anti-selection and send your insurance company into a downward spiral towards bankruptcy.
I 100% agree with your 3rd sentence.
Insurance companies can control the high cost of premiums, but why should they? With Obamacare eventually they will start leveling out which is something that the insurance companies are fretting about
No they willn't. They will be allowed to make 20%. 20% of a higher number is more money.
Premiums have been raising for decades. As a matter fo fact they doubled every eight years with the old system, and it was putting a major burden on corporations and on regular people.
PS It is interesting you claim your premium went up because of the mandate, but there us no mandate, and won't be for years.
1) Yep. It's called inflation. Medical inflation has been out of control and is driven by many factors. We need to do everything we can to rein it in.
2) Um, mandate or law....call it what you will....those newly insured kids are an expansion of coverage if you have a +family type insurance policy. I do. Additional insureds, same payers = my rates most certainly increased. This is fact. Are you seriously trying to tell me that 2 MILLION young adults got healthcare coverage and NO ONE had to pay for it? That's freaking magical.
If you can pay $80,000 in Student Loans, you can pay $200,000 for health care.
If you can pay $250,000 for a McMansion, you can afford to pay $200,000 for health care.
If you can afford to buy a new car every 3 years, you can afford $200,000 in health care.
If you can afford bundled cable, internet and cell-phone service, you can afford $200,000 in health care.
I have done none of those things. I got an $180,000 scholarship to go to my college and worked to pay off the rest loan free. I share a rathole apartment for $600 a month (the cheapest I can get in the place I had to move to when I got a job offer) and think it's unlikely that I'll ever own a home. I don't have cable and my cell phone is on a family plan. I only use it for emergencies and to call my family, nights, or weekends (free, and the line costs $10 a month).
I have had friends DENIED chemo until they can front a portion of the cost. It's not like student loans where you can pay a paltry $200 a month indefinitely. It's also not a CHOICE like all of the things you suggested. But I guess some people would consider choosing to live a negative.
Quote:
Insurance is cheaper than that. You can get a family plan for $180/month. You obviously didn't look too hard.
$600 was for catastrophic care - normal insurance was in the $1000s. I have PCOS, went to a psychiatrist once in high school for depression (in my files), have had numerous little autoimmune issues (skin reactions), and am overweight (largely as the result of the PCOS and steroids taken to handle the autoimmune issues). My parents both have health issues. I don't know why that's so hard to believe?
Quote:
It has nothing to do with inadequate access to health care.
I'm familiar with university insurance. I could characterize as many things, but "horrible" is not one of them. It is standard insurance, just like anything else.
My student insurance allowed me access to my school health center (told me that my numerous symptoms were "stress" for 4 years) and one visit to the doctor a year (with a $50 copay). Anything beyond that was subject to a $5000 premium before they kicked in. For a 21 year old paying their way through school, that makes it pretty horrible, and certainly horrible in comparison to the insurance I have now through my employer.
Quote:
I always ask, "How much money should we spend on one person?"
Some people consider that obtuse, but it goes to the heart of the matter, and that is you don't have the money, you never did have the money and you never will have the money.
Riddle me this - what was your financial portfolio at 19, 20? Did you have $200,000? Were you making commitments to things such as houses or education that would cost you $200,000 (or more, considering interest rates?). Where I was in college and where I am now a year out of college has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with my financial future. If anything, I would have had significantly more money given my lack of debt prior to this experience.
Like I said, I am employed with a company that offers health insurance, so I was lucky to not have to face these issues. Still, I went through chemo eating ramen noodles because I couldn't afford to eat decent meals. There were medications I couldn't fill. I've had to stop going to therapy because I can't afford the copays. My credit card is maxed out with medical and incidental bills, plus the exorbitant cost of having a car in the Boston area (no energy to walk to public transportation and also told that I was not allowed to take it during chemo).
The rest of your post makes the assumption that every person will use $500,000 of medical care in their lifetimes. Honestly, I do believe in rationing end-of-life care (ie, not covering the costs of long-term coma patients, open heart surgeries for 80 year olds, etc etc). But a 10, 23, 45 year old with cancer? All have a good chance of being productive after their treatment. That chance is dramatically reduced if they have to file for bankruptcy which can lead to problems obtaining new employment, finding housing, etc etc. I know I won't be able to start the business idea I've had floating around in my head because I won't be able to get coverage for my pre-existing condition. That's wealth and jobs that are not going to be created. I know that not everyone in these situations is as ambitious as I am, but it does make an impact.
Please direct me to the state department of insurance website that allows health insurers to do this.
Most of the uneducated babblers here probably think that the 20% out of 100 number is the profit margin too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterboy7375
no shhit, but those percentages are not allowed by law.
If they are not allowed by law, doesn't make businesses disinterested in lowering their profits.
Mathguy, I wish you had seen that premiums have been going up for decades. And since you were unaware until about now, I feel obligated to inform you that the premiums literally skyrocketed in 8-9 years providing the impetus for health care reform. Just a late addendum to make this point clearer:
Last edited by EinsteinsGhost; 12-14-2011 at 02:44 PM..
No they willn't. They will be allowed to make 20%. 20% of a higher number is more money.
Generally speaking you are correct. An expanded coverage would have the following impacts:
1) Fixed expenses would be spread over more premium base allowing a company to pay more money as a % out in claims while making the same profit margins.
2) Higher volume of premium, same profit margin = more dollars of total profit.
3) Same # shares of stock receiving more dollars of total profit = higher stock prices.
So, coverage expansion by whatever means will ABSOLUTELY increase the wealth of stockholders.
This assumes no wackiness like the states refusing to allow rate increases for the additional coverage etc etc. (Don't laugh, Bush did something like this in Texas as governor....polictical garbage. )
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.
)
