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'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.
So it is ignorant propaganda when everyone on this forum that has insurance for over 15 years did not see their premiums go up in that time period regardless of their health?
You see as an actuary you are trained to look at numbers and statistics (that can be altered to fit your view) I deal with actual people and the affects that having little or no insurance has on them. So naturally I don't expect you to agree with me. Hey it is what it is
If there is something to blame for it, it is influence of money (AKA "free speech") in government and how it is eventually run. I don't expect future lobbyists, politicians enjoying the incentives of legalized bribery (AKA "free speech") and corporatists themselves creating and enforcing policies towards the benefit of the people but their own self-interest at everybody else's expense.
Yep. The various major corporations helped write a lot of the healthcare legislation. Those darn republicans controlling the house, senate and presidency pushed this through to profit the fat cats and......oh wait.
Dem = Rep = Dem = Rep = Dem = ...............................
No they willn't. They will be allowed to make 20%. 20% of a higher number is more money.
The point is, that it is SUPPOSE TO LEVEL OUT when you have more low risk people buying into insurance plans to off set the higher risk people (At least I hope that it does)
So it is ignorant propaganda when everyone on this forum that has insurance for over 15 years did not see their premiums go up in that time period regardless of their health?
WTH are you even trying to say here?
I actually support universal healthcare, I'm just trying to have a realistic discussion about the costs and cost allocation structures (ie. premiums) that would deal with the situation effectively.
Insuring 2.1 million young adults will have cost implications. That's straight fact and the healthcare bill chose to extend coverage to those people via for-profit healthcare insurance aoptions. Anybody lost on these facts?
There are benefits however in terms of ease of administration (adding an insured to existing policies and not requiring additional govt. oversight is a plus), and for the 3rd freaking time in this thread I will state that actions like this will very likely put downward pressure on medical cost trends.
Here is the 64 dollar question. If you guys are so opposed to health insurer profits then WHY do you so emphatically support the healthcare bill written by them, that increases their insured base and whose rates must be approved by the government? If you believe they are screwing you over, how to your rationalize your love for the administration(s) that oversee their rate approvals and have put them in the driver seat? A wierd disconnect is going on here.
Mathguy the answer to your last question is:
Its because most dont truely understand the concept. The fact that the HI industry endorsed it should have thrown up a red flag for most, but they only see what they want to see.
Yep. The various major corporations helped write a lot of the healthcare legislation. Those darn republicans controlling the house, senate and presidency pushed this through to profit the fat cats and......oh wait.
Dem = Rep = Dem = Rep = Dem = ...............................
I believe the President and (most) democrats in Congress really wanted Public Option. Who were the greatest opponents of the idea, spending millions in lobbying against it? Who do you think is complaining the most about health care reform? How many insurance companies can you name are lobbying for versus against HCR? Besides, I think the President might actually prefer a single payer system. What do you think?
Having seen your posts for a long time, I believe you are smart enough to see through things and claims. So, do you believe that insurance companies are for the health care reform?
The point is, that it is SUPPOSE TO LEVEL OUT when you have more low risk people buying into insurance plans to off set the higher risk people (At least I hope that it does)
The only way to lower existing costs on people buying healthcare in this scenario is to overcharge the new low-risk people.
For example, bob is 50 and pays 5k a year and on average will have an 80% loss ratio for 4k a year of expected losses.
Suzy is 23 and her expected losses are 500dollars a year so her premium should be $625 to produce an 80% loss ratio and similar profit margin.
ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL you will only lower the rates of people like Bob if you charge Suzy MORE and thus reduce Bobs rates.
Unless this is mandated by the government, your competitors will then target your "Suzy's" with lower rates and drive you into the ground.
Social Security does function this way to some extent but again, that's a government run and mandated program so that's ok. Different insurance mechanisms however wouldn't work.
This is commonly dealt with by the various states with how they insure "at risk" drivers. There something like 4 different mechanisms out there which would apply nicely to healthcare too in these situations because there realistically has to be SOME subsidy or people with pre-existing conditions like cancer couldn't afford 50k a year premiums even if they were mathematically justifiable.
I believe the President and (most) democrats in Congress really wanted Public Option. Who were the greatest opponents of the idea, spending millions in lobbying against it? Who do you think is complaining the most about health care reform? How many insurance companies can you name are lobbying for versus against HCR? Besides, I think the President might actually prefer a single payer system. What do you think?
Having seen your posts for a long time, I believe you are smart enough to see through things and claims. So, do you believe that insurance companies are for the health care reform?
I agree with pretty much your whole post. Probably the only place we differ is that I hold less faith that the dems are any different from the reps. (I guess I'm jaded by all the hard talk towards the oil companies and then guess who got the biggest campaign contributions from Exxon in 2008 prez elections?)
Insurance companies WOULD LOVE healthcare reform if they are allowed to charge reasonable rates. Think of all the new people forced to buy insurance from them.
Let me pose the question another way. If the government was going to ban mandatory auto insurance do you think Statefarm, Geico, Allstate etc. would object?
The healthcare companies just don't want some big govt. program to come in and run them all out of business. Personally I think there is a happy-medium...as the governments track record of running insurance operations like this is dismal. (Just yesterday Illinois announced their pre-paid college tuition plan is 1.6billion in the red and they stopped selling contracts. )
Again, referring to how many states run their at risk auto pools....probably having the insurers administer the programs and make a profit is cheaper than having the government get in the insurance business and realistically there is too much political opposition to wholesale change.
You would only be correct if you could get anyone to believe all that crap...! obamacare is a complete failure, as is every other thing the corrupt one has come up with. You, along with all of the rest of America, will be far better off once obamacare is overturned, and better off still once we retire obama from office so he can do no more damage to the country.
Please learn the facts before you post and look very foolish...
That's an opinion. The poster posted, ahem, facts. Understand the difference, tot?
You are not going to get HI costs under control without getting HC costs controlled fisrt. Any healthcare provider will tell you that.
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.
)
