Should fit people pay a bit less in health insurance?

Not European. I'd just rather have their health care system and not pay loads extra so a useless "industry" can make billions of dollars.

If you are living longer you are PAYING longer also.

Why do runners waste money going for "treatment" of running injuries when 99% will go away with rest?

why have any 'useless' industries banking any $$ at all? why not nationalize all industry, since they're just sucking us dry?

your lack of understanding of basic economics is embarassing. You actually think a large corp making a profit - even margins as thin as in health insurance - are somehow evil or not to be desired?

Do you feel the same about your employer? Your industry? your business? Shouldn't your income be limited to no more than what you must have to afford life's essentials, comrade?

just my opinion wrote:

If you are living longer you are PAYING longer also.

Why do runners waste money going for "treatment" of running injuries when 99% will go away with rest?

I'll answer that question:

Because if treatment plus rest will get me back running faster than rest alone, I'm going to do it. One week of rest plus treatment beats one month of rest with no treatment.

I lack the patience to utilize the "wait til it goes away" method. I guess I just like running too much.

just my opinion wrote:

Why do runners waste money going for "treatment" of running injuries when 99% will go away with rest?

Spoken like someone who has never had a serious injury. I hope your good fortune continues. Seriously, I mean that. Sitting in a doctor's office when you'd give anyting be out running sucks.

Bum Knee wrote:

[quote]just my opinion wrote:

If you are living longer you are PAYING longer also.

Why do runners waste money going for "treatment" of running injuries when 99% will go away with rest?

If treatment gets me back running sooner than rest alone, that money is anything but wasted.

monkey man wrote:

From an insurance standpoint, the win-win would be to be very healthy AND die young!

Marathon runners?

Mortality wrote:

Not true wrote:

1. unhealthy people cost more for insurance companies because they tend to come down with diseases like diabetes, heart disease, and cancer (and these are just a few examples). Treating these maladies costs a fortune compared to preventative medicine like physicals, etc.

2. most healthy people are not injuring themselves so much that they have to get mris, surgeries, etc. that often. Perhaps a few injury prone runners do these things a lot.

Unhealthy person: dead at 70.

Healthy person: dead at 95.

That's an extra 25 years to ring up healthcare costs.

But at those ages, what types of insurance do people have? Medicare most likely. A few will have old style pension plans.

The running shoe industry makes shoes. The auto industry makes cars and trucks. The mining industry produces coal, iron, gold, etc, all products that people use. The health insurance industry provides no product. It's just a parasite turning profits from an already existing industry and

making it more expensive for people to obtain services from that industry than it needs to be.

There have been some interesting discussions about this idea. I have no research on this but this is my reasoning.Healthy people do live longer and that is a factor in total insurance costs over their lifetime. Unhealthy people cost insurance more per year of life but don\'t live as long. But there is more to the equation. One also has to add into the the equation the number of years that the healthy person pays more into the system than he takes out compared to the unhealthy person.I\'m guessing total insurance cost over a person\'s lifetime (claims minus amount paid into system) is less for the productive healthy person.C

Reality Checker wrote:

This is incorrect. Healthy people are a greater drain on health insurance companies because they live longer.

HRE wrote:

The running shoe industry makes shoes. The auto industry makes cars and trucks. The mining industry produces coal, iron, gold, etc, all products that people use. The health insurance industry provides no product. It's just a parasite turning profits from an already existing industry and

making it more expensive for people to obtain services from that industry than it needs to be.

Health insurance does provide something. It evens out risk. You give a smaller amount of money every year to avoid a catastrophically large loss in the future.

And to you people talking about healthy people living longer and costing more: even if they do, what does it matter? If I go in and buy a health insurance policy I'm not going to pay a lump sum for lifetime care, but rather pay a premium on a month-to-month or year-to-year basis. What matters for pricing should be how likely I am to get sick now.

I had a minor (common) surgery. The Dr told me it would cost $800.00 for me, but insurance would pay $2500.00 because that's the average cost.

Because I'm very healthy it's easy and cheaper. Maybe insurance should cover the lowest price and the unhealthy person pays the difference.

Bum Knee wrote:

I'll answer that question:

Because if treatment plus rest will get me back running faster than rest alone, I'm going to do it. One week of rest plus treatment beats one month of rest with no treatment.

Did the MRI make your knee feel better?

I understand actual treatments such as injections, PT, or medication, but unless your MD suspected a torn ligament or meniscus, your MRI was a waste of money.

physical therapist wrote:

I understand actual treatments such as injections, PT, or medication, but unless your MD suspected a torn ligament or meniscus, your MRI was a waste of money.

Are you suggesting that MDs prescribe MRIs for no reason?

Yes. A physical exam will usually be more than adequate (history is just adequate).

MRI sensitivity and specificity are poor, and if Bum Knee injured his knee running (straight plane motion), and MRI won't reveal anything that wouldn't be found with a good comprehensive physical exam.

MRI avg cost: $1500.

10-20% copay: $150-300, more if the deductible hasn't been met.

$300 = $30 copay to a physical therapist for 10 visits, which will probably be recommended after reading the MRI.

It's difficult to detect sarcasm on a MB, so if it was intended, well played.

My name is Lance wrote:

yeah, underwriting people based on their health is crazy. If it were simple & easy, you'd see life insurance companies doing it.

oh, wait...

Life insurance?! Hilarious! Lets try to keep on point and keep the crooks out of the discussion, eh!

Evening out risk is not a product and you do not pay a smaller amount each year. You pay a lot more for health insurance as you get older. If the Federal Government stuck a $2 per gallon tax on gasoline and used it to fund national health insurance my family would save tons of money. There are better and cheaper ways of evening out risks than health insurance.

Reality Checker wrote:

This is incorrect. Healthy people are a greater drain on health insurance companies because they live longer.

Conundrum wrote:

There have been some interesting discussions about this idea. I have no research on this but this is my reasoning.

Healthy people do live longer and that is a factor in total insurance costs over their lifetime. Unhealthy people cost insurance more per year of life but don't live as long.

But there is more to the equation. One also has to add into the the equation the number of years that the healthy person pays more into the system than he takes out compared to the unhealthy person.

I'm guessing total insurance cost over a person's lifetime (claims minus amount paid into system) is less for the productive healthy person.

C

Here's your research...

you're right. When you're diagnosed with cancer that requires 3 bouts of very expensive chemo + radiation + surgery + hospitalization, just get out the ole check book & pay the doctors, surgeons, hospitals, etc. Empty your piggy bank. Good plan, bro'