No... the point is to aggregate the cost, as you said.
Charging someone more because they increase that cost doesn't negate that point.
You think that's not the eventual plan?
Sure you are. You still dont pay for the huge majority of the services you receive, the healthy people still do that. The cost is still aggregated - you just pay a little more because you are a greater risk to create a greater cost. This doesnt negate the point of insurance in any way.Yes it does, because you are no longer aggregating the cost.
Sure you are. You still dont pay for the huge majority of the services you receive, the healthy people still do that. The cost is still aggregated - you just pay a little more because you are a greater risk to create a greater cost. This doesnt negate the point of insurance in any way.
Fill in the blank.
I personally feel people who live healthier lives should have to pay less, or people who live less healthy lives should pay more. But then, how do doctors gauge someone's overall health? Someone can say they don't smoke but really do. Or say they eat healthy but really don't. Doctors can only work off of what they see once or twice (sometimes less) a year. Not to mention insurance companies never see the patients (to my knowledge), so how do they know the doctor is being honest? And there are so many different ways to live healthy / unhealthy... how would one gauge everything?
Just curious.
If we're going to have heavily regulated insurance and all that jazz, we should be heavily punitive to lifestyles that don't benefit the health of a person.
Diabetes is one of them, a great many people could go off medication, if they used the diet control method.
Absolutely it is. It does exactly the same thing, the only difference is you pay a little more than some -- and some pay more than you.It makes it not insurance though.
So what?You're using market values and risk assessment for premiums.
That doesnt change, Its still insurance.Wherein the point of insurance is to take money from a group (money depends on the type of coverage desired) and spread out all the risk.
No, you dont. The cost is still aggregated across the entire pool of people that pays in.But now you're not spreading the risk, you're assessing it individually.
This is only because you're looking at it incorrectly.At which point I see no need for the insurance at all.
Why should you, a young healty person, pay the same for your insurance as does someone who is old and sick?Should cost the same no matter what.
Why should you, a young healty person, pay the same for your insurance as does someone who is old and sick?
Why should you, a young healty person, pay the same for your insurance as does someone who is old and sick?
That's exactly what insurance is, Goobie. Exactly.
The guy with the speeding tickets CHOSE to drive recklessly. No one chooses to get leukemia.
That's exactly what insurance is, Goobie. Exactly.
Bad example.
People choose ro smoke, they choose to be sedentary, they choose to be alcoholic,
Scarecrow Akhbar said:they choose to be gay.
Obvious troll is obvious.
they choose to be gay.
The guy with the speeding tickets CHOSE to drive recklessly. No one chooses to get leukemia.
I'd like to see smokers get a break. They already pay more than $3 billion a year in taxes over and above what they cost Medicare, so in a fair system they should get a discount.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?