Shut Up and Get Back In Line!

You're not factoring in adverse selection.

please explain.

i am sure there are multiple predictions of how revenue and costs will increase, due to the new law.

though, I must admit that costs will clearly go up before revenue increases.

on the other hand, however, revenue might also increase, now that folks know that they can get pre-conditions covered. folks might now buy insurance, even before the requirement kicks in.

i have no problem with insurers raising premiums after costs increase, AS LONG as they reduce premiums if revenue increases later on offset the raised costs.
 
Last edited:
please explain.

Krugman wrote an essay back in 2006 that covers a lot of this. I highly recommend it.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2006/mar/23/the-health-care-crisis-and-what-to-do-about-it/

So the only way modern medical care can be made available to anyone other than the very rich is through health insurance. Yet it’s very difficult for the private sector to provide such insurance, because health insurance suffers from a particularly acute case of a well-known economic problem known as adverse selection. Here’s how it works: imagine an insurer who offered policies to anyone, with the annual premium set to cover the average person’s health care expenses, plus the administrative costs of running the insurance company. Who would sign up? The answer, unfortunately, is that the insurer’s customers wouldn’t be a representative sample of the population. Healthy people, with little reason to expect high medical bills, would probably shun policies priced to reflect the average person’s health costs. On the other hand, unhealthy people would find the policies very attractive.

You can see where this is going. The insurance company would quickly find that because its clientele was tilted toward those with high medical costs, its actual costs per customer were much higher than those of the average member of the population. So it would have to raise premiums to cover those higher costs. However, this would disproportionately drive off its healthier customers, leaving it with an even less healthy customer base, requiring a further rise in premiums, and so on.

Insurance companies deal with these problems, to some extent, by carefully screening applicants to identify those with a high risk of needing expensive treatment, and either rejecting such applicants or charging them higher premiums. But such screening is itself expensive. Furthermore, it tends to screen out exactly those who most need insurance.
 
good analysis.

but if fails to factor in ALL Americans being required to possess health insurance.
Let's see... spend $12,000 on an insurance policy or pay an $800 tax penalty.

People will choose the former why, exactly?
 
This is a complete fabrication. The proponents spent 9 months agonizing over these details, while the opponents talked about killing Grandma. Just because Fox didn't cover any of the discussions doesn't mean they didn't take place.

Here's an example of the kind of absolute fantasy that took the place of "discussion" on the right.

http://www.liberty.edu/media/9980/attachments/healthcare_overview_obama_072909.pdf

That was sent to me by my Teabagging neighbor. Perhaps you can point me to the section on proper penalties for mandating coverage to avoid late adoption of coverage post illnesses? In fact, just reading this again makes me laugh. It's just pure, unadulterated lying.

I guess since your teabagging neighbor sent this to you, it must be the sum total of the opposition to the bill. Once again, I am educated. You and lefty are doing a good job keeping me straight.

It seems to be that any discussion about the flaws in the health care bill, which even you admit exist, ends with " you Fox news watching teabagger!"

Gets kind of old.
 
good analysis.

but if fails to factor in ALL Americans being required to possess health insurance.

It does? I read it to pretty clearly assert that the solution to adverse selection is getting more people into the pool. The more people in the pool, with no chance for dumping the unhealthy or denying them access, brings down the total average cost since what you want are healthier people buying insurance.
 
I guess since your teabagging neighbor sent this to you, it must be the sum total of the opposition to the bill. Once again, I am educated. You and lefty are doing a good job keeping me straight.

It seems to be that any discussion about the flaws in the health care bill, which even you admit exist, ends with " you Fox news watching teabagger!"

Gets kind of old.

You made the claim that no discussion took place, which is laughable.
 
Let's see... spend $12,000 on an insurance policy or pay an $800 tax penalty.

People will choose the former why, exactly?

Because they don't want to be bankrupt on hospital fees from before they got coverage on their sudden illness/accident?

What, you really think people will go "oh, I'll just pay $800 for nothing and if I end up in the ER, I'll get insurance while I'm in traction!"

I suppose idiots would.

Actually, that explains a lot.
 
Region Rat seems to have forgotten the group of six Senators who thrashed over the health care bill for almost a year. It included three very conservative Reps who came from small states representing a tiny portion of the overall population. So, in fact, Reps had a disproportionately large footprint on the bill whether viewed as part of the Senate population or part of the USA population.

Kwitcher whining.
 
Because they don't want to be bankrupt on hospital fees from before they got coverage on their sudden illness/accident?

What, you really think people will go "oh, I'll just pay $800 for nothing and if I end up in the ER, I'll get insurance while I'm in traction!"

I suppose idiots would.

Actually, that explains a lot.
Under the law they will in fact be able to get coverage while they're in traction, and have that problem paid for.

The idiots are the guys paying massive amounts of money for health insurance while they're healthy.
 
Under the law they will in fact be able to get coverage while they're in traction, and have that problem paid for.

The idiots are the guys paying massive amounts of money for health insurance while they're healthy.

They can get retroactive coverage???

Which company offers this?
 
pAS LONG as they reduce premiums if revenue increases later on offset the raised costs.

That's eggzackly how they do it Parky. :rolleyes:

They give their CEOs and CFOs record bonuses when they turn a profit, and they always seem to turn a profit...I wonder how that works?
 
Maybe I am simplifying this too much, but if someone isn't paying anything at all right now, wouldn't $ 700/year be at least some contribution to the health care budget?
if the money is used to subsidize private health insurance providers, i really dont see that happening though

Because they don't want to be bankrupt on hospital fees from before they got coverage on their sudden illness/accident?

What, you really think people will go "oh, I'll just pay $800 for nothing and if I end up in the ER, I'll get insurance while I'm in traction!"
if that were the case everyone would have purchased health insurance already, without a law requiring it

they can pay 3000 dollars for something they either dont think they need or cant afford, or pay an 800 dollar fine for not paying the 3000 dollars

They can get retroactive coverage???

Which company offers this?
once the law kicks in providers wont be able to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions

im not sure of all the details, there might be some period before coverage kicks in or something, i dont know
 
Region Rat seems to have forgotten the group of six Senators who thrashed over the health care bill for almost a year. It included three very conservative Reps who came from small states representing a tiny portion of the overall population. So, in fact, Reps had a disproportionately large footprint on the bill whether viewed as part of the Senate population or part of the USA population.

Kwitcher whining.

Nope, didn't forget, and not really whining about anything. I'm not sure how you can equate commenting on a seeming flaw in the bill, which flaw is admitted by at least one proponent of the bill on this thread, is whining.

The question is: how is getting required coverage enforced and what are the consequences if you don't get coverage? It would seem that the existing consequences are actually a better deal than getting coverage. That would seem to be a problem.

And by the way, I really don't care who was involved in the group of 6. I'm not a republican, I'm not a conservative, and I'm not from a small state. That has nothing to do with the bill as it stands.
 
They can get retroactive coverage???

Which company offers this?
They all will after the bill takes effect.

You've heard about the "must cover pre-existing conditions" part, haven't you?
 
WildCat, I thought the provision was one can't be denied future coverage because of past conditions. That is not the same thing as past coverage. But I am not any kind of expert in this matter.

ETA: Let's use the accident scenario. The guy's in traction and applies for insurance. The company has 30 days (I assume) to accept or reject his application. Suppose, in the good scenario, they accept. From that point on, they have to pay for his existing condition (i.e., broken bones, physical therapy, etc.) But I would not expect that they would have to pay for medical services up to the point of acceptance. If the window is really 30 days, they guy is either extremely rich or bankrupt.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom