Employer healthcare plans should be abolished. Privatize it all the way.

[debbiedowner]

Unless your employer is, in fact, a government entity, it is not socialism. Wasn't before, isn't now, won't be in the future. Socialism does NOT mean "doing something I don't like". So every time you try to call it "socialism" when your non-government employer gives you a benefit package that isn't what you want, you might as well just label your post "I'm a reactionary moron with a crappy vocabulary! Don't listen to me!"

Bullshit, they are socializing the cost of health care and evening it out to an extent. Tell me why I pay the same as some guy who is 30 years older than me. He should be paying 20 times what I pay. You are a bleeding heart liberal snowflake that doesn't want to see people being charged 10,000 a month for health insurance or being allowed to die.

When my parents were in the late stages of their life, I took a consistent stance. I was opposed to using taxpayer money to keep them alive. I fought with my family, who kept them alive so long that all of their life savings was wiped out and we inherited nothing. Not only that, taxpayer money was used to keep them alive at the end for a couple years.

So you wanted to unplug your parents? For what money? Tells me everything right there.

Not sure that was his point, but end of life care in the US is crazy expensive and takes up about 30% of what is spent on medical care in the US.

The insurance company was billed 91,000 for my two weeks in hospital last summer. My bil insurance company was billed close to a million for 3 weeks 7 years ago and died.

Is there a point to that?

Is there a point to you responding to me when I clearly was responding to gator?

Just attempting to show the op things can happen and what they may cost him. But I think he's left the thread.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

No. I am in favor of the government stopping employers from enforcing brutal socialism on the healthy and productive. Free market 100%.

Unless your employer is, in fact, a government entity, it is not socialism. Wasn't before, isn't now, won't be in the future. Socialism does NOT mean "doing something I don't like". So every time you try to call it "socialism" when your non-government employer gives you a benefit package that isn't what you want, you might as well just label your post "I'm a reactionary moron with a crappy vocabulary! Don't listen to me!"

Bullshit, they are socializing the cost of health care and evening it out to an extent. Tell me why I pay the same as some guy who is 30 years older than me. He should be paying 20 times what I pay. You are a bleeding heart liberal snowflake that doesn't want to see people being charged 10,000 a month for health insurance or being allowed to die.

When my parents were in the late stages of their life, I took a consistent stance. I was opposed to using taxpayer money to keep them alive. I fought with my family, who kept them alive so long that all of their life savings was wiped out and we inherited nothing. Not only that, taxpayer money was used to keep them alive at the end for a couple years.

So you wanted to unplug your parents? For what money? Tells me everything right there.

Not sure that was his point, but end of life care in the US is crazy expensive and takes up about 30% of what is spent on medical care in the US.

The insurance company was billed 91,000 for my two weeks in hospital last summer. My bil insurance company was billed close to a million for 3 weeks 7 years ago and died.

it is craziness.

 

[Ambivalent1]

I was responding to someone asking why I should choose to get health insurance. I said anyone can get hurt in an accident.

Correct. And anybody can develop an illness or disability. I don't understand what point you are trying to make here.

You buy health insurance in case you get sick. If you are high risk, it will cost thousands a month. Too bad. Not my problem. It is the same principle with health insurance, except health insurance is typically more expensive. Most Americans are currently paying far more for health insurance than they necessarily realize because the employer pitches in a huge amount to everyone's. It should be totally individualized and free market and I should pay a couple hundred a month and others should pay thousands a month because they are higher risk.

How do you determine risk?

Straight from the insurance exam.

"A probability or threat of damage, injury, liability, loss, or any other negative occurrence that is caused by external or internal vulnerabilities, and that may be avoided through preemptive action."

I know. I was once an insurance agent and handled corporate insurance programs too. You apparently do not know how that works or you wouldn't be using an insurance exam for a reference.

That "risk" is determined by extremely arbitrary means. Now, you have another word to go look up! Educate yourself.

LOL, I've been in insurance since 2000. No, risk is NOT an arbitrary concept, it like actuarial work is very precise and based on the law of large numbers among other things. You're an idiot who is full of himself. You aren't well informed old man.

 

[Ambivalent1]

Bullshit, they are socializing the cost of health care and evening it out to an extent. Tell me why I pay the same as some guy who is 30 years older than me. He should be paying 20 times what I pay. You are a bleeding heart liberal snowflake that doesn't want to see people being charged 10,000 a month for health insurance or being allowed to die.

When my parents were in the late stages of their life, I took a consistent stance. I was opposed to using taxpayer money to keep them alive. I fought with my family, who kept them alive so long that all of their life savings was wiped out and we inherited nothing. Not only that, taxpayer money was used to keep them alive at the end for a couple years.

So you wanted to unplug your parents? For what money? Tells me everything right there.

Not sure that was his point, but end of life care in the US is crazy expensive and takes up about 30% of what is spent on medical care in the US.

The insurance company was billed 91,000 for my two weeks in hospital last summer. My bil insurance company was billed close to a million for 3 weeks 7 years ago and died.

Is there a point to that?

Is there a point to you responding to me when I clearly was responding to gator?

Just attempting to show the op things can happen and what they may cost him. But I think he's left the thread.

Admiral thinks he is the Alpha.

 

[Ambivalent1]

No. I am in favor of the government stopping employers from enforcing brutal socialism on the healthy and productive. Free market 100%.

Unless your employer is, in fact, a government entity, it is not socialism. Wasn't before, isn't now, won't be in the future. Socialism does NOT mean "doing something I don't like". So every time you try to call it "socialism" when your non-government employer gives you a benefit package that isn't what you want, you might as well just label your post "I'm a reactionary moron with a crappy vocabulary! Don't listen to me!"

Bullshit, they are socializing the cost of health care and evening it out to an extent. Tell me why I pay the same as some guy who is 30 years older than me. He should be paying 20 times what I pay. You are a bleeding heart liberal snowflake that doesn't want to see people being charged 10,000 a month for health insurance or being allowed to die.

When my parents were in the late stages of their life, I took a consistent stance. I was opposed to using taxpayer money to keep them alive. I fought with my family, who kept them alive so long that all of their life savings was wiped out and we inherited nothing. Not only that, taxpayer money was used to keep them alive at the end for a couple years.

So you wanted to unplug your parents? For what money? Tells me everything right there.

Not sure that was his point, but end of life care in the US is crazy expensive and takes up about 30% of what is spent on medical care in the US.

The insurance company was billed 91,000 for my two weeks in hospital last summer. My bil insurance company was billed close to a million for 3 weeks 7 years ago and died.

A few years back I was in for 2 weeks, 168000.

 

[debbiedowner]

Unless your employer is, in fact, a government entity, it is not socialism. Wasn't before, isn't now, won't be in the future. Socialism does NOT mean "doing something I don't like". So every time you try to call it "socialism" when your non-government employer gives you a benefit package that isn't what you want, you might as well just label your post "I'm a reactionary moron with a crappy vocabulary! Don't listen to me!"

Bullshit, they are socializing the cost of health care and evening it out to an extent. Tell me why I pay the same as some guy who is 30 years older than me. He should be paying 20 times what I pay. You are a bleeding heart liberal snowflake that doesn't want to see people being charged 10,000 a month for health insurance or being allowed to die.

When my parents were in the late stages of their life, I took a consistent stance. I was opposed to using taxpayer money to keep them alive. I fought with my family, who kept them alive so long that all of their life savings was wiped out and we inherited nothing. Not only that, taxpayer money was used to keep them alive at the end for a couple years.

So you wanted to unplug your parents? For what money? Tells me everything right there.

Not sure that was his point, but end of life care in the US is crazy expensive and takes up about 30% of what is spent on medical care in the US.

The insurance company was billed 91,000 for my two weeks in hospital last summer. My bil insurance company was billed close to a million for 3 weeks 7 years ago and died.

A few years back I was in for 2 weeks, 168000.

Well at first I thought it was ridiculous but they saved my life and after all was said and done they received $6500 from insurance company and $1475 from me. But that is what they agreed to.

 

[RandomPoster]

Here you go OP.


Risk Pooling: How Health Insurance in the Individual Market Works

How Group Health Insurance Premiums Are Calculated and How You Can Manage Them

None of that refutes my claim that there are winners and losers when you pool together.

 

[RandomPoster]

Correct. And anybody can develop an illness or disability. I don't understand what point you are trying to make here.

You buy health insurance in case you get sick. If you are high risk, it will cost thousands a month. Too bad. Not my problem. It is the same principle with health insurance, except health insurance is typically more expensive. Most Americans are currently paying far more for health insurance than they necessarily realize because the employer pitches in a huge amount to everyone's. It should be totally individualized and free market and I should pay a couple hundred a month and others should pay thousands a month because they are higher risk.

How do you determine risk?

Straight from the insurance exam.

"A probability or threat of damage, injury, liability, loss, or any other negative occurrence that is caused by external or internal vulnerabilities, and that may be avoided through preemptive action."

I know. I was once an insurance agent and handled corporate insurance programs too. You apparently do not know how that works or you wouldn't be using an insurance exam for a reference.

That "risk" is determined by extremely arbitrary means. Now, you have another word to go look up! Educate yourself.

LOL, I've been in insurance since 2000. No, risk is NOT an arbitrary concept, it like actuarial work is very precise and based on the law of large numbers among other things. You're an idiot who is full of himself. You aren't well informed old man.

There is no way you are going to convince me that in a totally private, completely unregulated health insurance industry with absolutely no government restrictions of any type that if a healthy, single 18 year old male and a morbidly obese 55 year old married man with a wife and 15 kids he wants to put on his plan and that has already had three heart attacks both walked into the same insurance agency, they would be getting anywhere freaking near the same premiums quoted to them or that any benefits of pooling will overcome the discrepancy in the sense of bringing that healthy 18 year old male's premiums down.

How about we get auto insurance through our employer and everyone pays the same. One of your co-workers has full coverage on 6 Porsches and several others have been convicted of multiple DWIs and by some strange fluke most of your co-workers are young. Don't worry, the benefits of pooling will bring EVERYONE'S premiums down and there will only be winners, no losers.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You buy health insurance in case you get sick. If you are high risk, it will cost thousands a month. Too bad. Not my problem. It is the same principle with health insurance, except health insurance is typically more expensive. Most Americans are currently paying far more for health insurance than they necessarily realize because the employer pitches in a huge amount to everyone's. It should be totally individualized and free market and I should pay a couple hundred a month and others should pay thousands a month because they are higher risk.

How do you determine risk?

Straight from the insurance exam.

"A probability or threat of damage, injury, liability, loss, or any other negative occurrence that is caused by external or internal vulnerabilities, and that may be avoided through preemptive action."

I know. I was once an insurance agent and handled corporate insurance programs too. You apparently do not know how that works or you wouldn't be using an insurance exam for a reference.

That "risk" is determined by extremely arbitrary means. Now, you have another word to go look up! Educate yourself.

LOL, I've been in insurance since 2000. No, risk is NOT an arbitrary concept, it like actuarial work is very precise and based on the law of large numbers among other things. You're an idiot who is full of himself. You aren't well informed old man.

There is no way you are going to convince me that in a totally private, completely unregulated health insurance industry with absolutely no government restrictions of any type that if a healthy, single 18 year old male and a morbidly obese 55 year old married man with a wife and 15 kids he wants to put on his plan and that has already had three heart attacks both walked into the same insurance agency, they would be getting anywhere freaking near the same premiums quoted to them or that any benefits of pooling will overcome the discrepancy in the sense of bringing that healthy 18 year old male's premiums down.

How about we get auto insurance through our employer and everyone pays the same. One of your co-workers has full coverage on 6 Porsches and several others have been convicted of multiple DWIs and by some strange fluke most of your co-workers are young. Don't worry, the benefits of pooling will bring EVERYONE'S premiums down and there will only be winners, no losers.

There are winners and losers no matter what you do. With your way, you are the winner (for now) because you don't have any serious illness.....yet. The losers can't afford coverage and just die. So that's what you call fairness in your book? Wait until you get older and see if you have that same opinion after a surgery that costs over 500K.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Here you go OP.


Risk Pooling: How Health Insurance in the Individual Market Works

How Group Health Insurance Premiums Are Calculated and How You Can Manage Them

None of that refutes my claim that there are winners and losers when you pool together.

Did you get a quote on an individual plan yet?

Lazy bastard!

 

[debbiedowner]

Here you go OP.


Risk Pooling: How Health Insurance in the Individual Market Works

How Group Health Insurance Premiums Are Calculated and How You Can Manage Them

None of that refutes my claim that there are winners and losers when you pool together.

Did you get a quote on an individual plan yet?

Lazy bastard!

Hell he can get one of those unregulated indemnity plans if he's around 18 or 20 for under $100 per month, I say go for it, ditch that damn employer group insurance.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Markets don’t work with healthcare.

Socialism doesn't work with anything.

Nothing is perfect.

Freedom is best.

Bumper sticker responses at their best.

Explain why countries with universal health care, public education for all - no charter schools, no religious schools, and a mix of well regulated capitalism and private ownership, combined with policies and programs that benefit their citizens, not their corporations are doing SOOOO much better than the USA?

Because the person measuring the "soooo much better" is a retard with standards that only matter to her?

 

[Claudette]

Let's say one person is 40 years old and has a perfect driving record and pays 100 a month in car insurance. Another person is 23 years old, has been convicted of 6 DWIs and had 12 accidents in the last 5 years. He might pay 1200 a month even if he is the same age and drives the same model of car. I believe this is fair.

Let's say one person is 20 years old, single and in perfect health. He might pay 500 dollars a month with a non-regulated private insurer. Another person is 55 years old, morbidly obese, is married with 15 kids, and has a very expensive pre-existing condition. He goes to a non-regulated private insurer and they say they want 6,000 a month to insure him. How is this unfair?

Let's put them on the same plan and charge them both 3,250 a month. Heck, even 3,150 a month. How is this fair?

You do know that the law says that you can only charge 3 times the amount you charge the youngster right?

Pretty sure what he's complaining about is that as things stand now, if they work for the same employer, they probably have the same health plan and the same premium because the kid doesn't have a choice. It's the employer who decides what the plan will be, not the person being insured.

I can think of a few things I would like about a system where we purchase our healthcare and our health insurance the way we shop for and purchase other things. I would like insurance companies and health providers to have to compete for the business of the actual patients. I think we would be seeing an explosion of innovative new options, pricing, payment plans, etc. in no time.

I agree. Let all states allow all insurance companies to sell in their State. Competition brings prices down.

 

[debbiedowner]

Let's say one person is 40 years old and has a perfect driving record and pays 100 a month in car insurance. Another person is 23 years old, has been convicted of 6 DWIs and had 12 accidents in the last 5 years. He might pay 1200 a month even if he is the same age and drives the same model of car. I believe this is fair.

Let's say one person is 20 years old, single and in perfect health. He might pay 500 dollars a month with a non-regulated private insurer. Another person is 55 years old, morbidly obese, is married with 15 kids, and has a very expensive pre-existing condition. He goes to a non-regulated private insurer and they say they want 6,000 a month to insure him. How is this unfair?

Let's put them on the same plan and charge them both 3,250 a month. Heck, even 3,150 a month. How is this fair?

You do know that the law says that you can only charge 3 times the amount you charge the youngster right?

Pretty sure what he's complaining about is that as things stand now, if they work for the same employer, they probably have the same health plan and the same premium because the kid doesn't have a choice. It's the employer who decides what the plan will be, not the person being insured.

I can think of a few things I would like about a system where we purchase our healthcare and our health insurance the way we shop for and purchase other things. I would like insurance companies and health providers to have to compete for the business of the actual patients. I think we would be seeing an explosion of innovative new options, pricing, payment plans, etc. in no time.

I agree. Let all states allow all insurance companies to sell in their State. Competition brings prices down.

They can and I believe have been able since 2016 no one wants to take the dive. So ABC company is headquartered in Indiana and has a network set up so a family doctor is receiving lets' say $80 reimbursement from the insurance company plus your small co pay, that same company tries to negotiate in Florida to accept the same terms, it ain't going to happen.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If you are against each state regulating their insurance markets then you must be for government regulating it? Does this sound familiar?

No. I am in favor of the government stopping employers from enforcing brutal socialism on the healthy and productive. Free market 100%.

Unless your employer is, in fact, a government entity, it is not socialism. Wasn't before, isn't now, won't be in the future. Socialism does NOT mean "doing something I don't like". So every time you try to call it "socialism" when your non-government employer gives you a benefit package that isn't what you want, you might as well just label your post "I'm a reactionary moron with a crappy vocabulary! Don't listen to me!"

Bullshit, they are socializing the cost of health care and evening it out to an extent. Tell me why I pay the same as some guy who is 30 years older than me. He should be paying 20 times what I pay. You are a bleeding heart liberal snowflake that doesn't want to see people being charged 10,000 a month for health insurance or being allowed to die.

When my parents were in the late stages of their life, I took a consistent stance. I was opposed to using taxpayer money to keep them alive. I fought with my family, who kept them alive so long that all of their life savings was wiped out and we inherited nothing. Not only that, taxpayer money was used to keep them alive at the end for a couple years.

So you wanted to unplug your parents? For what money? Tells me everything right there.

Not sure that was his point, but end of life care in the US is crazy expensive and takes up about 30% of what is spent on medical care in the US.

The downside to our ability to treat life-threatening conditions is that it leaves some people doing a long, slow decline that eats up every cent they have. Not to say that living instead of dying isn't a big upside, as a rule.

 

[debbiedowner]

I was wrong, apparently it was never implemented but it was in ACA rules in 2010, no direction was given to the insurers.

So, if insurance companies could sell individual market plans across state lines, and state regulators didn’t have to follow ACA requirements, would “your premiums” go down “60 and 70 percent”?

Experts cited several reasons that the across-state-lines idea wouldn’t be a cure for high premiums as the president implied.

Joseph Antos, the Wilson H. Taylor Scholar in Health Care and Retirement Policy at the American Enterprise Institute, wrote in a Feb. 26, 2016, post on the think tank’s website that even with giving states regulatory authority, “one should not expect interstate sales to significantly reduce the cost of health insurance.”

Why? Primarily because the costs of health services are local. Medical services are more expensive in places like New York City or San Francisco — like virtually every other commodity — than they are in, say, small towns in Ohio, or even other areas of New York and California.

Antos, who was on President Ronald Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers and held other positions in the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Health and Human Services, told us in a phone interview that more regulatory flexibility “could reduce premiums to some extent,” but insurers are still locked into the costs of health services in a given geographic area. The “price of insurance is driven not by the cost of health care in the state where the insurer is legally domiciled,” Antos said, but rather in the state where the customer lives.

So a cheap plan in an inexpensive locale would still have to be priced higher if sold in a high-cost area.

Linda J. Blumberg, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute’s Health Policy Center, told us that some people could see a drop in what they pay for premiums on the magnitude Trump claimed, if insurers significantly curtailed benefits. But other people — those who want or need to buy comprehensive policies — could see dramatic premium increases.

This is the “race to the bottom” that the NAIC cited in its “myth vs. reality” paper.

In states with unregulated markets, “you could create a situation where you are selling very low-priced policies to healthy people without much [insurance] protection whatsoever,” Blumberg, who was a health policy adviser to President Bill Clinton’s administration, said in a phone interview. “But that ignores the fact that … what you’re doing is driving up the premiums to impossible levels” in states that want to have insurance regulations.

It’s a “risk-segmentation strategy,” she said, where eventually the healthy people are pulled into one set of plans and those with health problems are left in another. Premiums would go up so much in states with regulated plans that it would become impossible for them to sustain those regulations.

That’s one reason state regulators don’t like this idea, says Blumberg, because “no state regulator wants … to be undermined by rules in another state.”

Antos wonders how much insurers could possibly strip down their policies. They could reduce some benefits, but it “would also have to be something people want to buy,” he said. And excluding certain benefits, like mental health benefits, wouldn’t reduce premiums by much.

It’s difficult to know what would happen, Antos said. If an insurer were to drop all inpatient services, for example, the premium would be a lot cheaper. “But who would buy it?” he said.

Sabrina Corlette, a research professor at Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms, said that the lion’s share of a premium is the money a plan has to pay for medical claims, as well as utilization. Selling insurance across state lines wouldn’t change the price of medical services — as Antos said — but if insurance companies could deny coverage or charge more for health conditions, a carrier could “push down on utilization by screening out sick people” and then, “they can charge a lower premium.”

“You could start to see dramatically different premiums” between regulated and unregulated states, Corlette said, echoing Blumberg’s comments.

A September 2016 study by RAND Corp. researchers looked at the impact of Trump’s health care campaign proposals, including selling policies across state lines. It didn’t provide estimates for the impact on premiums alone, but said that out-of-pocket costs would increase on average for individual market enrollees if the ACA were repealed, and increase even more if only the across-state-lines policy were added. But that doesn’t account for any tax credits, which presumably would be part of a larger ACA-replacement package.

Evan Saltzman, one of the authors of that report, told us that he didn’t think it was a stretch to say premiums would go down by allowing insurance to be sold across state lines. But a 60-to-70 percent drop seems “a little unreasonable.”

“Maybe a 21-year-old would see that kind of decrease, but a 64-year-old might not,” he said.

Then there’s the question of how much insurers want to sell plans across state lines. Insurance companies build networks of doctors and hospitals in a given area to provide discounted pricing. The ACA has highlighted the fact that insurers are able to reduce premiums by offering plans with narrow networks.

Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini told CNBC in late January that an across-state-lines proposal was past its prime: “Quite frankly, the idea of selling insurance across state lines is a dated concept. Insurance products are now tightly aligned with networks, and so buying an insurance product from another state that’s tied to a network in another state really doesn’t work for people seeking care.”

In fact, Corlette found that a “significant barrier,” more so than regulatory environments, to insurers entering a new market was ” the enormous difficulty that out-of-state insurers face in building a network of local providers.” In a 2012 report for Georgetown’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms, Corlette and her co-authors interviewed government officials and insurers in the handful of states that have enacted laws regarding cross-state insurance sales. As we mentioned, no insurer had entered a new market due to those laws.

The American Academy of Actuaries outlined all of the concerns we’ve covered here in a February brief. On provider networks, the professional association said: “Any cost savings resulting from differences in benefit coverage requirements among states can be small compared to cost savings that can be accomplished through negotiating strong provider contracts. Unless they are able to achieve a large enrollment, out-of-state insurers may have difficulty in negotiating with providers.”

The NAIC cautioned in a Jan. 24 letter to GOP leaders in the House of Representatives: “We continue to see proposals that would preempt state licensing requirements and, thus, consumer protections by allowing sales across state lines by federal edict, without proper discretion for the states to form compacts between themselves.”

Saltzman, co-author of the RAND study, said there’s also “selective entry” within states, where, for instance, Los Angeles has a lot of insurance competition but rural areas of the state don’t.

He said, and other experts agreed, that it’s very difficult to model an across-state-lines policy. The appendix to his September 2016 report noted that this was “particularly challenging given the lack of available data on insurer entry decisions and strategic behavior.”

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Pretty sure what he's complaining about is that as things stand now, if they work for the same employer, they probably have the same health plan and the same premium because the kid doesn't have a choice. It's the employer who decides what the plan will be, not the person being insured.

But that is no more true for non-employment based health insurance plans. The mistake the OP is making is to expect health insurance to imitate car insurance with exact corollaries. This is a foolish and uneducated expectation. All forms of insurance are designed to the unique forms of risks involved. The risk of loss associated with flood insurance is very different from the potential losses covered by auto insurance, health insurance, etc.

In the case of auto insurance, the potential for loss is attributable to at-fault individuals 100% of the time. Therefore, the insurance company is able to tailor policies based on the covered driver's likelihood of being at fault in a loss. Health insurance is very different. If you catch the flu your health insurance company can't charge the expenses to the person who spread the flu to you. Most losses can't be attributed to an at-fault party, so health insurance has to rely on other factors. Ultimately the OP ignores (or is ignorant of) the fact that health insurance pricing is not the same for all people. It's just that different factors are assessed in health insurance. One of the biggest variables is whether an individual is a tobacco user.

Ultimately, while current law has restricted some of the factors that insurers are allowed to use to differentiate risk groups, such as gender and preexisting conditions, demanding for health insurance plans to be "privatized" is absurd because they are already privatized. There is no socialized health care in the US.

 

[g5000]

Let's say one person is 40 years old and has a perfect driving record and pays 100 a month in car insurance. Another person is 23 years old, has been convicted of 6 DWIs and had 12 accidents in the last 5 years. He might pay 1200 a month even if he is the same age and drives the same model of car. I believe this is fair.

Let's say one person is 20 years old, single and in perfect health. He might pay 500 dollars a month with a non-regulated private insurer. Another person is 55 years old, morbidly obese, is married with 15 kids, and has a very expensive pre-existing condition. He goes to a non-regulated private insurer and they say they want 6,000 a month to insure him. How is this unfair?

Let's put them on the same plan and charge them both 3,250 a month. Heck, even 3,150 a month. How is this fair?

And then the 20 year old gets cancer and his health insurance company boots him off their insurance and he's fucked.

How is this fair?

Also, a 23 year-old with 6 DWI's would lose his license for life. So he won't be needing auto insurance.

 

[g5000]

I do not agree employer sponsored health insurance should be abolished, but I do believe the tax exemption for employer sponsored health insurance should be abolished.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Let's say one person is 40 years old and has a perfect driving record and pays 100 a month in car insurance. Another person is 23 years old, has been convicted of 6 DWIs and had 12 accidents in the last 5 years. He might pay 1200 a month even if he is the same age and drives the same model of car. I believe this is fair.

Let's say one person is 20 years old, single and in perfect health. He might pay 500 dollars a month with a non-regulated private insurer. Another person is 55 years old, morbidly obese, is married with 15 kids, and has a very expensive pre-existing condition. He goes to a non-regulated private insurer and they say they want 6,000 a month to insure him. How is this unfair?

Let's put them on the same plan and charge them both 3,250 a month. Heck, even 3,150 a month. How is this fair?

You do know that the law says that you can only charge 3 times the amount you charge the youngster right?

Pretty sure what he's complaining about is that as things stand now, if they work for the same employer, they probably have the same health plan and the same premium because the kid doesn't have a choice. It's the employer who decides what the plan will be, not the person being insured.

I can think of a few things I would like about a system where we purchase our healthcare and our health insurance the way we shop for and purchase other things. I would like insurance companies and health providers to have to compete for the business of the actual patients. I think we would be seeing an explosion of innovative new options, pricing, payment plans, etc. in no time.

I agree. Let all states allow all insurance companies to sell in their State. Competition brings prices down.

Not only that, it spurs innovation.