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.
If insurance companies based their charges on actuarial science, health insurance would be higher for women then for men, since they "use" (go to the doctor) more than males do. At one time we had a free market system where such things were looked at and people that cost the insurance companies more paid more. Obamacare put an end to that.
At one time we had health insurance companies that were non-profit. Nixon put an end to that.
My husband and I have almost perfect driving records. And because of that, our auto insurance is lower than typical.
We are health freaks. We workout at the gym almost everyday of the week. We are very mindful of what we eat. We are both very active adults. Our blood tests always come back exactly what a healthy adult should be. His body fat percentage is 10-12% while mine is 13-14%.
So, why do we pay the same premiums for our health insurance as people who are morbidly obese?
Don't get me wrong. I'm not putting down fat people at all. I believe in freedom of choice. If people want to be fat, then more power to them.
But how come insurance companies never put one's healthy lifestyle (or the lack thereof) into account?
"Why don't health insurance reward healthy lifestyle?"
In general they DO.
If you engage in say, sky diving or smoking and other dangerous activities, your rates go UP.
My husband and I have almost perfect driving records. And because of that, our auto insurance is lower than typical.
We are health freaks. We workout at the gym almost everyday of the week. We are very mindful of what we eat. We are both very active adults. Our blood tests always come back exactly what a healthy adult should be. His body fat percentage is 10-12% while mine is 13-14%.
So, why do we pay the same premiums for our health insurance as people who are morbidly obese?
Don't get me wrong. I'm not putting down fat people at all. I believe in freedom of choice. If people want to be fat, then more power to them.
But how come insurance companies never put one's healthy lifestyle (or the lack thereof) into account?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MetroWord
We are currently enrolled in my employer's plan. I pay the same as a coworker even though he is 300+ LB and have missed many days of work due to health issues.
You will pay much much less in health related issues than your co-worker. Good health is its own reward.
You will live about as long as your parents, give or take a few things.
You will pay much much less in health related issues than your co-worker. Good health is its own reward.
Yes, that's what hefty co-pays are supposed to be about.
Insurance companies are not in business to lose money, and they're not being forced to be health insurers.
I'm totally confident they have fully incorporated actuarial science into their pricing--that's the only way they can demonstrate to shareholders that they're truly making as much profit as possible.
At one time we had health insurance companies that were non-profit. Nixon put an end to that.
So much wrong here it's not even funny.
Nixon didn't do anything and there were only ever two non-profit insurance companies, the very first health insurance company, the Blue Cross founded by the American Hospital Association in 1946 and its competitor the Blue Shield founded by the American Medical Association a few months after the Blue Cross was up and running.
And, I certainly hope you're not implying that non-profit is somehow better, because it isn't.
80% of hospitals were members of the American Hospital Association. The other 20% were members of the American Medical Association.
The AHA and AMA were bitter enemies like the Hatfields & McCoys.
The AHA wanted total control of doctors and charging everyone a fixed fee for services.
The AMA wanted total freedom for doctors and charging sliding-scale fees for patients. That means if you're dirt-poor, you pay $0.25 for the doctor to come to your home and fix what ails you, and if you're rich, then it might be a $1.00.
When the AHA and AMA member hospitals started offering health insurance, the States got involved. It's the middle of the Great Depression, and States need revenues and so if it looks like insurance, it is, and it needs to be taxed and regulated and fees paid to the State.
The AHA lobbied States for "enabling laws" in order to avoid being regulated as insurance companies.
These are some of those laws:
NY Laws 1934, c. 595, adding Article 14, §§452-461, to the New York Insurance Law. The 1939 legislature adopted a new codification of the Insurance Law, effective June 15, 1939, in which Article DC-C, §§250-259, was substituted for Article 14, broadened to include non-profit medical indemnity
corporations, and amended in other respects.
California: Stat. 1935, c 386, amended, Stat. 1937, c. 881, Stat. 1939, A. B. 1712;
Illinois:Rev. Stat. (1937) §§551-562;
Mississippi: Laws 1936, c 177;
Georgia: Laws 1937, no. 379, p. 690;
Maryland: Laws 1937, c. 224;
Massachusetts: Annotated Laws (1938 Supp.) c 176A;
Pennsylvania: Stat. Ann. (Purdon, 1938) tit. 15, a 49A, §§2851-1301—2851-1309;
Kentucky: Acts 1938, c. 23;
New Jersey: Laws 1938, c. 366;
Connecticut: Laws 1939, S. B. 51;
District of Columbia: S. B. 497, 76th Cong. 1st Scss.(1939);
Iowa: Laws 1939, c. 222;
Maine: Laws 1939, c. 149;
Michigan: Laws 1939, H. B. 145;
New Hampshire: Laws 1939, H. B. 232;
New Mexico: Laws 1939, c. 66;
Ohio: Laws- 1939, S. B. 181;
Rhode Island: Laws 1939, c. 719;
South Carolina: Acts 1939, H. B. 845;
Texas: Laws 1939, Subst. H. B. 191;
Vermont: Laws 1939;
Wisconsin: Laws 1939, S. B. 288.
Note: The Iowa, Michigan, and Wisconsin acts were passed in 1939 after bills had been defeated in 1937.
The AHA then attempted to drive all the AMA hospitals out of business or force them to join the AHA.
How?
"Out-of-Network."
Yes, that's where it all started.
If you purchase an insurance plan through an AMA member-hospital, you cannot use it at an AHA member-hospital.
Later, the AHA combines the insurance plans issued by all AHA member-hospitals under one umbrella and that is the Blue Cross.
The "Out-of-Network" policy remains in effect: You cannot use Blue Cross at any AMA member-hospital.
After the 1949 In Re: Inland Steel Supreme Court decision, the flood-gates open.
Private for-profit insurance companies jump in head first.
Within a few short years, the AHA's Blue Cross market share dropped from 80% to 56%.
The AHA was losing money and losing control and losing it fast.
Why?
Because private insurance could do something the Blue Cross couldn't do, and that's couple catastrophic health insurance with life insurance.
The Blue Cross cannot by law issue life insurance policies because it is not a bona fide insurance company, since it lobbied the States to enact the laws I listed above to exempt it from insurance regulation by the State.
Here's your choice:
1) Pay premiums to the Blue Cross for the rest of your life until you die and get nothing back; or
2) Pay premiums for 10 years, never pay another dime the rest of your life, but you and your spouse (and minor children) are covered until the day you die and then your named beneficiaries get paid whatever you didn't use for healthcare.
Which is better?
Well, someone would have to be a stupid frickin' idiotic imbecilic moron not to reject Blue Cross in favor of the other insurance. The Working-Class Poor, the Lower Class and the Middle Class all now have a chance to build Wealth and pass that Wealth on to their children and grand-children.
Just think how much better American would be if families had the chance to do that.
And, that's exactly what everyone was doing. Nobody wanted Blue Cross. That's why they were losing market share.
What do to?
Run to Congress.
The AHA lobbied Congress to ban the practice of tying catastrophic insurance with life insurance in order to dick over and totally screw Millions and Millions of Americans.
Here it is:
"Premiums paid by an employer on policies of group life insurance without cash surrender value covering the lives of his employees, or on policies of group health or accident insurance...do not constitute salary if such premiums are deductible by the employer under Section 23(a) of the IRS Code."
Source: Public Law 83-591, August 16, 1954; Internal Revenue Code of 1954, Section 106. For more information see the 1986 Internal Revenue Code.
Thanks to your own governments and the AHA, you're stuck with paying premiums your entire life.
I hope you all now have a better understanding of how your States, your federal government and the American Hospital Association has screwed you over and made your lives miserable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by raggedjim
Holy cow! Unions, MAFIA, Congress, and state government all in the same post! Bingo!
The laws are posted above, if you do doubt.
I can post more laws if you want. It's a matter of public record.
For your information:
"Introduced by various House and Senate sponsors and subject to extensive hearings, the basic framework of part A began to reflect accommodations between the sponsors, the Administration and the American Hospital Association (AHA).
It ranged all the way from principles of institutional reimbursement, which has been pretty thoroughly already worked out in a general way for their own purposes between Blue Cross and the Hospital Association over a period of several years
The American Hospital Associationhas already nominated the Blue Cross organization for its membership, although some member hospitals will undoubtedly elect out of this arrangement. We have proceeded very far in the development of working arrangements with Blue Cross, although no formal approval as a fiscal intermediary has yet been given them."
Source: Report to Social Security Administration Staff on the Implementation of the Social Security Amendments of 1965, Robert M. Ball Commissioner, November 15, 1965
After the American Hospital Association royally screwed Millions of Americans and left Millions more without health insurance, it comes to the rescue by writing the legislation for Medicare and then playing the hero and offering up the Blue Cross as your Lord & Savior.
"Why don't health insurance reward healthy lifestyle?"
In general they DO.
If you engage in say, sky diving or smoking and other dangerous activities, your rates go UP.
Most health plans I have seen do not reward healthy life styles, maybe life insurance companies but not health. I am in favor of increasing rates on those who do not take responsibility.
Yes, there are chances to reduce your premium according to policyholder health conditions while buying insurance. Contact the insurance provider and get help.
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.
