Or be like the rest of the post industrial world and have health care financed publicly and at a lower by far than it would cost us to do that now.
Or be like the rest of the post industrial world and have health care financed publicly and at a lower by far than it would cost us to do that now.
HRE wrote:
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.
Maybe it isn't a product, but it is what an economist would call a "good." I suppose it is a service. It isn't useless.
By "smaller," I meant smaller than you would have to pay if you had a major medical expenditure, not that it would declid with age.
Maybe there are better ways of evening out risks, but that doesn't mean it is a better way. An M1 Abrams tank is a better weapon than brass knuckles, but brass knuckles are still a weapon.
Thanks, very interesting Dutch study. *I wonder if its results would be replicated in additional atudies? Logical that smokers are the cheapest because they die so quickly.This may be for government provided health costs. When healthy individuals payments are are put into the equation that might change results. Healthy people are more productive longer and pay more into the system.
Reality Checker wrote:
Here's your research...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html?_r=1&
Unhealthy person: dead at 70.
Healthy person: dead at 95.
That's an extra 25 years to ring up healthcare costs.[/quote]
They are paying for an extra 25 years though
physical therapist wrote:
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.[/quote]
Of course not. My orthopedist did suspect a torn meniscus, and the MRI showed just that. After doing some research, I decided against his suggestion of surgery and opted instead for - wait for it - physical therapy. My PT has been great. In fact, I swear by her. My visits are paid for in part by my health insurance. That's a cost that wouldn't be incurred if I were not a runner. And that was my original point - that runners don't necessarily save health insurance costs just because they're "healthy" (whatever that means).
Unhealthy person: dead at 70.
Healthy person: dead at 95.
That's an extra 25 years to ring up healthcare costs.
Doclove wrote:
They are paying for an extra 25 years though
Not in the US.
++
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.
sure but since the insurance companies arent paying for health care costs after 65, shouldnt you give lower rates to fit people that are under 65 and buying insurance?
Of course everyone likes paying their own way til they are the ones being asked to pay more🤣 I mean if you have an over use injury and incur 1500 in PT, shouldnt they raise your rates to account foe your poor judgement?
Conundrum wrote:
If you take steps to lead a healthy life style, including regular exercise, you are likely to be less of a liability to insurance companies. Shouldn't you pay less.
How should fitness be measured though?
Already happens somewhat because older people, statistically more likely to be more of a liability, do pay more.
However under ACA, you can’t be forced to pay more for preexisting conditions anymore, which is good for people who want to change their insurance any time after they develop a new condition.
In any insurance, the lower liability folks are paying for the higher ones. Health however is unlike say auto insurance and is therefore regulated differently. It’s seen as a bit more like a human right, as it should be in any developed society, even if it’s privatized in the US. Anyone can develop a serious illness even if you are fit, so socializing those costs results in a society with more peace of mind.
Home or auto are seen as more like business transactions. If you insist on buying a home in a flood or hurricane prone zone, you either pay more or buy elsewhere. Driving history for auto is to a large extent under your control and it’s easy in the case of an accident to establish who was at fault. Health is not necessarily under one’s control as genetics, infection, bad luck etc also play a role and it’s not easy to disambiguate personal responsibility from societal in health, e.g., people eat what they can afford and in America, what the poorest can afford is not healthy, so is it their fault or America’s fault? How do you measure that?
Knowing that the poorest are statistically most likely to be the unhealthiest in our society, how would you feel about making them pay more insurance premium?
The ACA not only eliminated the ability of US health insurers to refuse to cover and/or to charge more for persons with pre-existing health conditions, it eliminated the longstanding practice of charging significantly higher premiums for women under 55 than for men, whether the premiums were paid by the insured themselves or their employers.
As you point out, health insurance rates for ACA policies and workplace plans in the US already differ based on the age(s) of the person(s) covered, with older people paying more particularly from age 55 on. Although this varies from state to state and by the level of coverage, an individual who is 55 generally pays at least three times the rate of someone 21, all other factors being equal. In top-tier plans, the difference in premiums is often far greater.
The cost of US health insurance also varies considerably based state of residence, specific zip code (which is indicative of wealth/poverty, housing standards, exposure to pollution, etc ) and tobacco-use status. People who smoke, vape or chew tobacco products can be charged premiums 150% the normal rate.
https://www.healthcare.com/premiums-21109
https://healthcareinsider.com/health-insurance-smokers-42747
Also, the USA's Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act of 2008 made it illegal for employers and US insurers to discriminate against applicants and employees based on the result of individuals' own genetic testing and/or the history of genetic conditions, diseases and "defects" that have occurred in their families. This (theoretically) ended the practice of using information about individuals' own genes and the inherited or genetically-linked health issues affecting their family members past and present to deny persons health insurance coverage, or to charge them more for it.
Ah yes, poverty/wealth is predicted by zipcode and therefore statistically speaking indirectly used to charge the poorer more, but the indirection makes it less in your face compared to basing premiums on individualized health predictive metrics, as I read the OP’s suggestion question.
fitte wrote:
Ah yes, poverty/wealth is predicted by zipcode and therefore statistically speaking indirectly used to charge the poorer more, but the indirection makes it less in your face compared to basing premiums on individualized health predictive metrics, as I read the OP’s suggestion question.
But it's not that simple. The lowest income people who purchase health insurance coverage through ACA plans are eligible for subsidies. When it comes to poorer people getting insurance through ACA plans, zip codes are used to determine how big their subsidies will be - not "to charge the poorer more" like you say. The people for whom zip codes are used to charge more are wealtheir people who get no subsidies.
Moreover, people who are at or near the poverty level in the US don't pay health insurance premiums at all, because they are eligible for Medicaid or, if they are on disability, Medicare, free of charge. People who make too much money for Medicaid but whose income is too low for private insurance can also get CHIP for their minor children.
For seniors whose income is high enough that they have to pay premiums for Medicare, my understanding is that the $ amount is not affected by state of residence or zip code - however, the plan options that are available in different places are affected.
Yes they should pay a premium. They'll say it's discrimination but the reality is a lot of other insurance forms use discrimination to get a premium out of people (ie young male drivers automatically pay more insurance) so therefore health insurance should do that too. It's only fair and it's in the person's control (their weight).
RunRagged wrote:
fitte wrote:
Ah yes, poverty/wealth is predicted by zipcode and therefore statistically speaking indirectly used to charge the poorer more, but the indirection makes it less in your face compared to basing premiums on individualized health predictive metrics, as I read the OP’s suggestion question.
But it's not that simple. The lowest income people who purchase health insurance coverage through ACA plans are eligible for subsidies. When it comes to poorer people getting insurance through ACA plans, zip codes are used to determine how big their subsidies will be - not "to charge the poorer more" like you say. The people for whom zip codes are used to charge more are wealtheir people who get no subsidies.
I see, thanks for the explanation. I incorrectly assumed that zip codes were used for pricing risk premia, but subsidizing seems like a more humane use of that information.
Steve The Addict^^^^^^^------- wrote:
Yes they should pay a premium. They'll say it's discrimination but the reality is a lot of other insurance forms use discrimination to get a premium out of people (ie young male drivers automatically pay more insurance) so therefore health insurance should do that too. It's only fair and it's in the person's control (their weight).
Fairness is in the eyes of the beholder. Health insurers can already base premia on weight as it’s not considered a pre-existing condition (go figure). In public policy terms, allowing insurance companies to “charge by weight” is little different from the government imposing a tax on heavier people.
As a skinny person, that doesn’t seem unreasonable to me, but I might feel differently if I were getting frustrated trying to lose weight. There isn’t consensus on the extent of congenital vs. behavioral disposition towards weight, i.e., the extent to which one can control their weight.
Health is the most beautiful and rich gift that nature knows how to make, and if you are aware of this, then you cherish it and protect it, and you want to have the certainty that in various situations you will be able to count on qualified medical help. And with https://joywallet.com/state-farm-auto-insurance/ I can also have insurance on the car, in case of an accident to have my car repaired. Just like me with a medical policy like this and the car, I think this is not a fad and everyone has to have insurance .
Health care should be a human right