Health Care changes

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 361 - 380 of total 1290 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Nov 8, 2013 - 01:13pm PT
Your house probably costs less than a catastrophic health issue, why dont you vote in a government that will bring in a single payer system instead of trying to go backwards.

Now there's a classic free lunch.

John
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Nov 8, 2013 - 01:20pm PT
OK. That does it! Every time I click on this thread, I get an ad for health insurance. This thread is obviously part of a vast conspiracy to rip us off one way or the other, so I'm done here.

John
Crimpergirl

Sport climber
Boulder, Colorado!
Nov 8, 2013 - 01:28pm PT
I am curious why so many are annoyed that maternity is included in policies. I don't and won't ever need it either. But I will also never need prostate cancer care, or testicular cancer care, etc. Why no outrage about that?
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Nov 8, 2013 - 01:41pm PT
Short answer, crimpie, is that maternity generally depends on the actions of the insured and therefore is not a classic insurable risk. To my knowledge, no one voluntarily contracts ovarian or testicular cancer.

I realize this answer is politically incorrect, but it is economically and, heretofore legally, a distinction vital in insurance contracting.

John
Crimpergirl

Sport climber
Boulder, Colorado!
Nov 8, 2013 - 01:45pm PT
So JE - does that mean we shouldn't cover climbing accidents too as they are based on the actor's actions?
apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Nov 8, 2013 - 01:46pm PT
Crimpie won't need Viagra, either, but you or I could get it through our insurance coverage even if we don't really need it.

Not sayin'....jess sayin'...
Snowmassguy

Trad climber
Calirado
Nov 8, 2013 - 01:47pm PT

"We are keeping the insurance because Obamacare excludes the hospital that is the nearest to our home."


Why does the hospital have to be close to your home? Paying more justifies not having to drive further? And isn't that a choice you're making, not the gov't?


So when we need ER services, I( or my children) want to spend an extra hour in the car bleeding out or be directed to the hospital closest to my house that will probably just charge me huge $$$$ because I am out of network.


So Hedge, did you sign up for Obamacare or do you have other insurance. Just curious?




apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Nov 8, 2013 - 01:51pm PT
Teenagers who eat too much ice cream exacerbate their acne...yet insurance will cover their medications.

Smokers who smoke too much will likely have a heart attack, and their insurance will cover them anyway.

These actions...and so many others, including pregnancy...require acts of the part of the individual.

Why wouldn't a socially-promoting & basic human right of pregnancy not be expected to be part of basic healthcare coverage?

Dave Kos

Social climber
Temecula
Nov 8, 2013 - 01:51pm PT
There is no insurance policy called Obamacare.

Obamacare just defines the rules for the private insurance market.

JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Nov 8, 2013 - 02:03pm PT
Crimpie, it certainly means that we would not cover climbing, motorcycling, ultralight aircraft, etc., for the same rate we cover those who choose not to engage in those activities. In fact, most all life insurance policies require that you pay extra for a variety of choices, not only recreational, but, e.g., choosing to smoke. Europeans require that the rescued climber pay for the rescue, thus creating the market for rescue insurance.

In general, when we allow people to engage in costly activities and insure against the costs of those activities for free, we create what economists call a "moral hazard." This has nothing to do with morality in its conventional sense. Rather, it creates a subsidy for engaging in costly activity. It is similar to requiring all of us to subsidize flood insurance for those who choose to live in a flood plain.

As many have pointed out, what we call "health insurance" has an insurance component -- namely indemnity from unanticipated outcomes from which we are all at risk, regardless of our actions -- but it also includes what amounts to routine maintenance. Maternity involves a combination of both factors. In this day and age, most children represent a voluntary action by people who desire to have children. The "normal" cost of maternity is something everyone having children will pay. There's also, though,, the additional costs that result from complications. Those additional costs are a true insurable risk. The former are not.

Ironically, the opponents of the ACA often oppose legal abortion as well. If there were no legal abortion, unplanned pregnancy would then be a classic insurable risk, so maybe Dave Berry was right when he titled his book Children and Other Hazards of Sex.

Does that help?

John
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Nov 8, 2013 - 02:08pm PT
and once again, Crimpie absolutely blasts it out of the park

I am curious why so many are annoyed that maternity is included in policies. I don't and won't ever need it either. But I will also never need prostate cancer care, or testicular cancer care, etc. Why no outrage about that?
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Nov 8, 2013 - 02:09pm PT
they're complaints about the extortionate cost of health care in this country,

When Medicare was enacted health care consumed 3% of the GNP; now it is 8% and rising rapidly.
Snowmassguy

Trad climber
Calirado
Nov 8, 2013 - 02:17pm PT
Seems that those that are not impacted by Obamacare LOOOOOOOVVVEEE IT

Don't worry. Your policy will change in the not too distant future and it will cost you more $$$

Just a matter of time.

Dave Kos

Social climber
Temecula
Nov 8, 2013 - 02:17pm PT
In theory, insurance companies could identify individual risks for everything we are and everything we do and apply that to the formula to the premium.

In practice, it probably doesn't much matter.

Insurance companies have been able to offer employee group polices for decades and still make a profit. These policies require everyone to pay the same premium, regardless of age, gender, behavior, etc.

If it can work at IBM, why can't it work for a group consisting of the general population? The pool of IBM employees includes pregnant women, older men, smokers, etc., and yet everyone pays the same rate.

I'll ask it again: For those that claim everyone's rates are going to go up, where is all the money going?



Snowmassguy

Trad climber
Calirado
Nov 8, 2013 - 02:29pm PT
I'll ask it again: For those that claim everyone's rates are going to go up, where is all the money going?


I guess we will find out over time.

Seems like it is going to subsidize policies for those that cant afford a policy.

Problem is it is putting the financial burden of folks like me that make just enough to support my family but not enough to qualify for subsidies? As a contract employee, it might just be worth to take a few months off to qualify for subsidies and declare a lower income. More family time and others can pay for my subsidy lol



My rates are going up big time and appear to be locked for 1 year. Betting that they go up again next year. As a family we are going to need to make sacrifices next year to afford insurance. What happens the following year when we see another large rate increase and cant afford it without. Like I said in a previous post...I believe the choice between insurance and rent/mortgage payment is going to be a reality of prices still rise.


I see organizations that I do contract work for getting ready to pass the buck to their employees. Both through part time work as well as increased $$ burden being passed to the employee.

If you have a comfy policy through your employer, expect to pay more.







Snowmassguy

Trad climber
Calirado
Nov 8, 2013 - 02:30pm PT
My union dues are $920 a year. Some DAYS I make double that. IN A DAY.


It all makes sense now. He is an elitist.

JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Nov 8, 2013 - 02:34pm PT
I'll ask it again: For those that claim everyone's rates are going to go up, where is all the money going?

For coverage many neither want nor need. Dave, there's really no good economic reason why we price catastrophic health coverage differently from our pricing of life insurance, or even car insurance. Even under California's somewhat irrational law, my choices still affect my rate because that rate factors in:

1. How much I drive;
2. My driving record;
3. The expense of repairing my car (for collision); and
4. How much coverage I want.

Once I pay off my car, I will no longer need or want collision insurance, and I should hot be required to pay for it. The "we're all one big group and we should share all our health care costs" model ignores both freedom of choice and reality. Why should I pay for health care costs incurred by someone who chooses to smoke, for example? (In California the answer is, in part, I don't because of the heavy tobacco taxes, but that's a different story).

The fact remains that a traditional insurable risk is one over which the insured has no control, not one arising from intentional acts. That's why, for example, it's illegal in most situations for insurance to cover punitive damages. Our health care coverage is not entirely insurance, and we need to recognize and account for the difference.

John
Snowmassguy

Trad climber
Calirado
Nov 8, 2013 - 02:48pm PT
We should all be poor, ignorant and vote repub

You are batting 0 for 3 if you are referring to me.

You do know your Union Plan will get the axe sooner rather than later.

Have fun with that Hedgesnob
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Nov 8, 2013 - 02:53pm PT
Hedge, you're right, I missed a digit. You should see my check book - kind of like the gubmint's.
Snowmassguy

Trad climber
Calirado
Nov 8, 2013 - 03:05pm PT
Once I pay off my car, I will no longer need or want collision insurance, and I should hot be required to pay for it. The "we're all one big group and we should share all our health care costs" model ignores both freedom of choice and reality. Why should I pay for health care costs incurred by someone who chooses to smoke, for example?

+1

This is why Obamacare will fail. It is not economically feasible for the middle class to finance all the mental health care that Hedge gets/ needs

So Hedge, I am sure your Kaiser plan will decrease in price with additional bene's on January 1?



Messages 361 - 380 of total 1290 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews