"if you like your doctor we don't give a ****."

[RJM62]

That's insurance, by definition. You are sharing in a risk pool.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Part of the problem is that the risk pool is skewed by politically-driven, selective application of whether risk factors can be applied to one's premium.

Just as one obvious example, lifestyle choices that place people at high risk for HIV/AIDS cannot be considered, nor even asked about, despite the existence of extensive data and obvious relevance. To do so much as ask, it has been decided, would be an infringement upon their personal liberties.

But you can be charged more simply because you've reached a certain age.

I paid more for car insurance when I was a young man because young male drivers tend to get into more accidents. I have been charged more for life insurance all my life because men tend to die sooner. When I smoked I paid more because of the obvious risks associated with smoking. And now I pay more because I have Type 2 Diabetes, with brings with it its own set of potential complications. All of those factors are perfectly allowable in terms of determining premiums because they affect risk, and I've never complained about them. I get that some people are riskier bets than others.

But if I decided to walk the streets and have unprotected sex with random strangers every night, that could not be considered in setting my premiums. That's a legally-protected lifestyle choice, despite the fact that it greatly increases risk. But celibate priests and nuns, post-menopausal women, and vasectomized men still have to carry maternity insurance, despite their having near-zero risk of ever needing that coverage.

If we must have universal coverage and subsidize each others' high-risk behaviors, then at least do it fairly. Either consider all of the risk factors or consider none of them. A 60-year-old man who lives a healthy lifestyle should not be penalized for managing to stay alive, while the "lifestyle" of a 19-year-old meth whore who takes it up the rear every night to stay fixed is protected by law.

Rich

 

[weilke]

You got me thinking - Googled around a bit, and found this - expectancy IF you made it to 21. A little beyond childhood, for sure. Guess it smooths the data a bit for violent death, and those weakened by disease in childhood that held on a while:

1200–1300: age 64
1300–1400: age 45 (bubonic plague)
1400–1500: age 69
1500–1550: age 71

Depending on source, we're somewhere in the upper 70's now, for white and Hispanic Americans. 3 or 4 years lower for black Americans, with he gap closing.

Anyway, I guess, depending on your point of view, it's improved a lot since 1550. But the really big change is in how many more humans make it out of childhood (and early adulthood) alive.

Refrigeration, pasteurization and the sanitary sewer are what caused the big bumps in survival.

 

[Sundancer]

Refrigeration, pasteurization and the sanitary sewer are what caused the big bumps in survival.

Only the bumps aren't that dramatic, are they? 500 years to get another 7 years or so. Though as a percentage, they are significant. . .

 

[NHWannabe]

Therein lies the devil in the details.

You cannot go without health insurance in this country anymore. period. I've thought about just saying shove it and take our chances but they will get you on the back end. If you don't play their game, the IRS will levy a fine of either 2.5% of your gross income or charge you per individual what a standard bronze rate plan costs per month whichever is higher. And they will grandfather it back.

So if you just say shove it, go without insurance and pay cash, you will owe the IRS what it would have cost you for a bronze insurance plan anyway for the whole year. So you will pay one way or another. So you would be stupid not to just buy insurance.

The law doesn't have any enforcement teeth the IRS cannot go after you for the penalty the only avenue they have for collecting the fine is to hold your tax refund. You only need to figure out your withholding to make sure you don't get a refund.

 

[NHWannabe]

Can we afford not "weed out the old and sick" via Sarah Palin's Death Panels?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

...and who gets to decide who gets "weeded out". Margaret Sanger had an idea about that.

 

[NHWannabe]

And yet they have gone up 227% over the past 5 years.

Maybe you measure "windfall" different than I do.

LMAO.....

Much of the growth pre-ACA was through acquisition and post-ACA has been driven by growth on the Optum side which is the non-medical insurance side of UHG.

 

[NHWannabe]

Good, because I'm sick of subsidizing people who don't buy insurance.

You're still subsidizing them

 

[NHWannabe]

No, but I expect to get insurance when the house is rebuilt. I expect to get insurance when I get a replacement car.

But when I get a new heart valve, no coverage after that if you switch employers or retire early? Pre-ACA, not so much.

Spare us the medical welfare BS.

I sincerely hope that some of you and the rest of the "**** you, you're on your own crowd" find yourselves in same position some day. Perhaps it will give you a little better perspective......


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The existing HIPAA laws pre-ACA did not allow insurers todenycoverage for a pre-existing condition if you had coverage for the prior 12 months as long as you did not have a break in coverage not exceeding 63 days.

 

[ggroves]

The existing HIPAA laws pre-ACA did not allow insurers todenycoverage for a pre-existing condition if you had coverage for the prior 12 months as long as you did not have a break in coverage not exceeding 63 days.

HIPAA still had conditions by which exclusions could be made. ACA closed these. More importantly, ACA placed restrictions on charging more for pre-existing plans.

Sorry...I'm very much pro-ACA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NHWannabe]

That's insurance, by definition. You are sharing in a risk pool.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

But in a true insurance pool you pay based on risk, the ACA eliminated that everyone pays the same or close to the same.

 

[Sundancer]

HIPAA still had conditions by which exclusions could be made. ACA closed these. More importantly, ACA placed restrictions on charging more for pre-existing plans.

Sorry...I'm very much pro-ACA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Apology accepted. Now give me back my effing money. . .best bumper sticker to-date:

"Yes, I drive a Prius. No, I don't want to pay for your health insurance".

 

[N801BH]

But in a true insurance pool you pay based on risk, the ACA eliminated that everyone pays the same or close to the same.

Yup...

Which removes the incentive for the 400lb fat lady laying around in section 8 housing with her legs spread and on her 10 baby, and infected with AIDS, high blood pressure and a walking heart attack /stroke.... All the while shoving potato chips down her throat bought with food stamps..

And to make it fair, and not hurt her feelings,her premiums are the same as people who excersize, eat right. live healthy and maintain a decent body weight...

 

[weilke]

HIPAA still had conditions by which exclusions could be made. ACA closed these. More importantly, ACA placed restrictions on charging more for pre-existing plans.

You are describing the problem.

 

[NHWannabe]

Yup...

Which removes the incentive for the 400lb fat lady laying around in section 8 housing with her legs spread and on her 10 baby, and infected with AIDS, high blood pressure and a walking heart attack /stroke.... All the while shoving potato chips down her throat bought with food stamps..

And to make it fair, and not hurt her feelings,her premiums are the same as people who excersize, eat right. live healthy and maintain a decent body weight...

Wonder if people here would be as agreeable to having their insurance rates go up so they could subsidize low hour pilots...

 

[ggroves]

You are describing the problem.

Sorry. I don't see it as a problem. Never will. I see it as a shared responsibility to make coverage available across the board.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ggroves]

But in a true insurance pool you pay based on risk, the ACA eliminated that everyone pays the same or close to the same.

Sure. Let's take the term insurance out of it and simply call it coverage. Eliminates the confusion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[FastEddieB]

Sorry. I don't see it as a problem. Never will.

Refreshing to see such an open mind engaging in debate.

Not.

 

[ggroves]

Refreshing to see such an open mind engaging in debate.



Not.

A dozen or so people extolling the evils of Socialism, and a few people who see if differently. Not much of a debate? Kinda the norm on POA.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[weilke]

Sorry. I don't see it as a problem. Never will. I see it as a shared responsibility to make coverage available across the board.

Premiums being a reflection of individual risk would not mean that coverage is not available across the board. It would just cost more.

As a previous poster pointed out, o-care still allows insurers to charge more based on age. Why pick and choose of what risk factors are allowed to go into the premium ? Weight and type II diabetes you can control. Age, you can't control.

 

[Doggtyred]

Yup...

Which removes the incentive for the 400lb fat lady laying around in section 8 housing with her legs spread and on her 10 baby, and infected with AIDS, high blood pressure and a walking heart attack /stroke.... All the while shoving potato chips down her throat bought with food stamps..

And to make it fair, and not hurt her feelings,her premiums are the same as people who excersize, eat right. live healthy and maintain a decent body weight...

Can you fit any more stereotypes in there?

And for what its worth, the beast you describe would not be paying premiums in the first place

 

[Sundancer]

Sorry. I don't see it as a problem. Never will. I see it as a shared responsibility to make coverage available across the board.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I hear you, understand your point of view. Valid, rational, worthy of consideration. I just don't agree that it's a shared responsibility, that I have a moral obligation to help pick up the tab. Never will, as you say. . .

 

[denverpilot]

The law doesn't have any enforcement teeth the IRS cannot go after you for the penalty the only avenue they have for collecting the fine is to hold your tax refund. You only need to figure out your withholding to make sure you don't get a refund.

Um. You do realize what you receive in "refunds" is based on what you are getting back that you shouldn't have paid anyway...

... and that doesn't change the bottom line number of what you owe increasing at all?

I always want to beat my head on the desk until it bleeds when people equate their "refund" with what they actually PAY in taxes.

But in a true insurance pool you pay based on risk, the ACA eliminated that everyone pays the same or close to the same.

Not even close to true.

I hear you, understand your point of view. Valid, rational, worthy of consideration. I just don't agree that it's a shared responsibility, that I have a moral obligation to help pick up the tab. Never will, as you say. . .

That's pretty much the crux of it all, isn't it?

Are others ever responsible to pay for your life just because they live in the same geographic area of the planet? Especially for things directly caused by personal choices?

Socialists wrap up tyranny in a nice bow and claim it's better for everyone that way. Gunpoint or imprisonment isn't too harsh for anyone who disagrees.

Non-socialists wrap up personal greed in a nice bow and claim it's the natural way while ignoring human suffering next door.

Politicians lie to both groups and live high on the hog off of both while spouting ideology and putting nearly zero thought into actual service of others, only themselves.

 

[txflyer]

I'll coin a new paradigm if I may .... "hybrid capitalism" ... or ... "semi-capitalistic socialism" Because our health insurance choices clearly do not fall under free market competition rules anymore.

I guess I will never understand how you can force someone to insure themselves or anything for that matter. Even cars. If I want to insure myself, fine. If I want to insure myself against un-insured people, I can buy that too. But the choices should be mine.

Why not force everyone to pay for life insurance with the government as the beneficiary while we're at it? Oops, I better not say that out loud.

 

[N801BH]

I'll coin a new paradigm if I may .... "hybrid capitalism" ... or ... "semi-capitalistic socialism" Because our health insurance choices clearly do not fall under free market competition rules anymore.

I guess I will never understand how you can force someone to insure themselves or anything for that matter. Even cars. If I want to insure myself, fine. If I want to insure myself against un-insured people, I can buy that too. But the choices should be mine.

Why not force everyone to pay for life insurance with the government as the beneficiary while we're at it? Oops, I better not say that out loud.

They already do..... Social Security...

The guv is betting you will die before you collect all you were FORCED to pay in...

You are betting to gain by living longer then expected...

 

[N801BH]

Um. You do realize what you receive in "refunds" is based on what you are getting back that you shouldn't have paid anyway...

... and that doesn't change the bottom line number of what you owe increasing at all?

I always want to beat my head on the desk until it bleeds when people equate their "refund" with what they actually PAY in taxes.




Not even close to true.




That's pretty much the crux of it all, isn't it?

Are others ever responsible to pay for your life just because they live in the same geographic area of the planet? Especially for things directly caused by personal choices?

Socialists wrap up tyranny in a nice bow and claim it's better for everyone that way. Gunpoint or imprisonment isn't too harsh for anyone who disagrees.

Non-socialists wrap up personal greed in a nice bow and claim it's the natural way while ignoring human suffering next door.

Politicians lie to both groups and live high on the hog off of both while spouting ideology and putting nearly zero thought into actual service of others, only themselves.

I agree with most of that..

I am willing to help the poor soul who is down on his luck...

BUT....

The 10's of millions who create their own health issue that is self induced, I say... Let the suckers die quickly... Darwinism and natural selection and all..

 

[Chip Sylverne]

I guess I will never understand how you can force someone to insure themselves or anything for that matter. Even cars. If I want to insure myself, fine. If I want to insure myself against un-insured people, I can buy that too. But the choices should be mine.
.

You are not forced to purchase insurance for your car. You simply need to meet the minimum financial responsibility required by your state if you should cause damages to others while operating it on public thoroughfares. If you can do it by posting a bond, have at it. Most people can't.

Please explain why you should you be able to choose to put others at risk without being financially responsible for the forseeable consequences of your actions?

 

[NHWannabe]

Um. You do realize what you receive in "refunds" is based on what you are getting back that you shouldn't have paid anyway...

... and that doesn't change the bottom line number of what you owe increasing at all?

I always want to beat my head on the desk until it bleeds when people equate their "refund" with what they actually PAY in taxes.




Not even close to true.




That's pretty much the crux of it all, isn't it?

Are others ever responsible to pay for your life just because they live in the same geographic area of the planet? Especially for things directly caused by personal choices?

Socialists wrap up tyranny in a nice bow and claim it's better for everyone that way. Gunpoint or imprisonment isn't too harsh for anyone who disagrees.

Non-socialists wrap up personal greed in a nice bow and claim it's the natural way while ignoring human suffering next door.

Politicians lie to both groups and live high on the hog off of both while spouting ideology and putting nearly zero thought into actual service of others, only themselves.

Yes I do know a "refund" is an overpayment which is why I usually pay on April 15 but you missed the point that there is no enforcement teeth in the law. You only pay the "penalty" or tax as the SC ruled if you're dumb enough to have overpaid on your withholding. If you actually had to pay a penalty everyone would be signed up for something.

Everyone does pay close to the same, only smokers and older people pay more and for older people the cost is capped at no more than 3X what a younger participants pay.

You cannot charge a man less than a woman even though women historically incur more claims then men because men go to the doctor less.

If you are healthy and have to purchase a plan on the exchange get the highest deductible plan you can get and max out the Health Savings Account contributions every year. If your over 50 you can contribute an extra $1000 per year IIRC. In addition to the tx free benefits of an HSA, unlike an FSA there is no time limit for when you have to take a reimbursement technically you could pay out of pocket until retirement while growing your HSA and take the reimbursement then.

 

[txflyer]

You are not forced to purchase insurance for your car. You simply need to meet the minimum financial responsibility required by your state if you should cause damages to others while operating it on public thoroughfares. If you can do it by posting a bond, have at it. Most people can't.

Please explain why you should you be able to choose to put others at risk without being financially responsible for the forseeable consequences of your actions?

Because they can purchase insurance from a company insuring them against me if they choose.

I may drive a million miles my entire life and never hurt anyone. Ever think about that? Consequences are not foreseeable.

The zeal many people have nowadays to let their government dictate their choices is mind bending.

 

[Chip Sylverne]

Because they can purchase insurance from a company insuring them against me if they choose.

I may drive a million miles my entire life and never hurt anyone. Ever think about that? Consequences are not foreseeable.

The zeal many people have nowadays to let their government dictate their choices is mind bending.

If you drive a car on public roads, it's foreseeable you may cause harm. Whether you actually do or not isn't relevant. There is a measurable probability.

You just don't want to be held responsible for it.

 

[roncachamp]

The zeal many people have nowadays to let their government dictate their choices is mind bending.

Liberty has become an extraordinarily tough sell. Who woulda thunk it?

 

[txflyer]

If you drive a car on public roads, it's foreseeable you may cause harm. Whether you actually do or not isn't relevant. There is a measurable probability.

You just don't want to be held responsible for it.

I don't want to be forced to be responsible for something I may never do.

Let people choose what they want to be insured against. Not blanket force insured. If a calamity happens and no one is insured, tough tits. Live with it. Everyone loses.

What we have now is everyone wins. The lawyers win, the insurance companies win, the plaintiff's win, even the offender's win because they were forced to pay in order to pay.

 

[asechrest]

Because they can purchase insurance from a company insuring them against me if they choose.

I may drive a million miles my entire life and never hurt anyone. Ever think about that? Consequences are not foreseeable.

The zeal many people have nowadays to let their government dictate their choices is mind bending.

Compulsory insurance is not a new concept and has a long history. It is also not limited to auto liability insurance. With respect to auto liability, though, it is only compulsory if you choose to exercise the privelege of driving in an owned vehicle. Further, it is governed at the state level, so it's not a FedGov-run-amok deal.

 

[JoseCuervo]

I don't want to be forced to be responsible for something I may never do.



Let people choose what they want to be insured against. Not blanket force insured. If a calamity happens and no one is insured, tough tits. Live with it. Everyone loses.



What we have now is everyone wins. The lawyers win, the insurance companies win, the plaintiff's win, even the offender's win because they were forced to pay in order to pay.

Ironically arguing against personal responsibility.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wsuffa]

You are not forced to purchase insurance for your car. You simply need to meet the minimum financial responsibility required by your state if you should cause damages to others while operating it on public thoroughfares. If you can do it by posting a bond, have at it. Most people can't.

Please explain why you should you be able to choose to put others at risk without being financially responsible for the forseeable consequences of your actions?

If you drive a car on public roads, it's foreseeable you may cause harm. Whether you actually do or not isn't relevant. There is a measurable probability.

You just don't want to be held responsible for it.

Compulsory insurance is not a new concept and has a long history. It is also not limited to auto liability insurance. With respect to auto liability, though, it is only compulsory if you choose to exercise the privelege of driving in an owned vehicle. Further, it is governed at the state level, so it's not a FedGov-run-amok deal.

What about mandatory insurance for gun owners? That's a concept being promoted by quite a number of people these days as a means of gun control.

 

[denverpilot]

Yes I do know a "refund" is an overpayment which is why I usually pay on April 15 but you missed the point that there is no enforcement teeth in the law. You only pay the "penalty" or tax as the SC ruled if you're dumb enough to have overpaid on your withholding. If you actually had to pay a penalty everyone would be signed up for something.

Penalties not recovered this year will be paid next year. They don't disappear, AFAIK.

Doesn't matter if you were owed a refund or not.

At some point they will garnish wages and add additional penalties for underpayment and interest penalties on the money owed.

As far as "everyone would be signed up for something", no... There's still folks who'd have good fiscal reasons to pay the penalty instead of paying for coverage. Especially if it costs more. Young folks mostly.

Like you said, "everybody pays the same..." Oh wait. No. They don't.

Everyone does pay close to the same, only smokers and older people pay more and for older people the cost is capped at no more than 3X what a younger participants pay.

That's an impressive bit of rationalization you've accomplished there. "Everyone pays the same except for people who age."

Is this some new sorry sort of "truth" they teach these days? I know the critical thinking classes are all gone from schools, but you actually typed that and believed yourself?

 

[NHWannabe]

Penalties not recovered this year will be paid next year. They don't disappear, AFAIK.

Doesn't matter if you were owed a refund or not.

At some point they will garnish wages and add additional penalties for underpayment and interest penalties on the money owed.

As far as "everyone would be signed up for something", no... There's still folks who'd have good fiscal reasons to pay the penalty instead of paying for coverage. Especially if it costs more. Young folks mostly.

Like you said, "everybody pays the same..." Oh wait. No. They don't.





That's an impressive bit of rationalization you've accomplished there. "Everyone pays the same except for people who age."

Is this some new sorry sort of "truth" they teach these days? I know the critical thinking classes are all gone from schools, but you actually typed that and believed yourself?

Must be pretty awesome to have never misspoken, however compared to how insurance was rated before, age and sex banded in many states there isn't much difference now in what people pay.

Again read the law the only way the IRS can "penalize" you is to withhold a refund.

Merry Christmas to you

 

[weilke]

Compulsory insurance is not a new concept and has a long history. It is also not limited to auto liability insurance. With respect to auto liability, though, it is only compulsory if you choose to exercise the privelege of driving in an owned vehicle. Further, it is governed at the state level, so it's not a FedGov-run-amok deal.

Also, my car insurance premium is dependent on the risk pool I am a member of, my individual loss experience and the loss experience of the type of car I insure. The state doesn't mandate that my liability insurance pays for oil changes.

The only risk to others from uninsured patients is that of hospitals having to write off EMTALA mandated admissions. If we required an insurance to cover the risk to others, it would be $20/month. But no, the government requires you to carry comprehensive coverage, extended warranty and a prepaid service plan on your 15 year old jalopy.

 

[denverpilot]

Must be pretty awesome to have never misspoken, however compared to how insurance was rated before, age and sex banded in many states there isn't much difference now in what people pay.



Again read the law the only way the IRS can "penalize" you is to withhold a refund.



Merry Christmas to you

You said everyone paid the same and then followed up with old people pay 3x what others pay. Now you're back to saying okay the largest demographic differences in humans pay different rates.

That's not "miss-speaking", that is willingly not paying attention to facts. Or you simply don't get what the words mean.

You also keep reiterating that IRS has no way to collect back taxes owed if you don't overpay, which is blatantly wrong. Otherwise the advertising on radio wouldn't be full of "Do you owe $10,000 or more to the IRS? We can help!"

The amount incurred is not limited by what you paid up front on it. And they will come and get it eventually. The penalty is not erased just because they don't owe you a refund in a particular year.

Think about it. There are plenty of people who properly estimate their taxes and don't get refunds ever. I try. My accountant gets real close most of the time unless something changes and I forget to notify him. Making loans to the government that prints whatever money they want, is a sign of fiscal retardedness.

You're essentially saying the penalties don't apply to anyone who accurately estimates their taxes and pays only what they owe. It doesn't work that way.

If someone has convinced you to keep you payments low to the IRS so you can magically avoid the penalty, you're going to be very sad when they come get it in a few years. Sounds like BS from the Internet. Good luck with that.

 

[NHWannabe]

You said everyone paid the same and then followed up with old people pay 3x what others pay. Now you're back to saying okay the largest demographic differences in humans pay different rates.

That's not "miss-speaking", that is willingly not paying attention to facts. Or you simply don't get what the words mean.

You also keep reiterating that IRS has no way to collect back taxes owed if you don't overpay, which is blatantly wrong. Otherwise the advertising on radio wouldn't be full of "Do you owe $10,000 or more to the IRS? We can help!"

The amount incurred is not limited by what you paid up front on it. And they will come and get it eventually. The penalty is not erased just because they don't owe you a refund in a particular year.

Think about it. There are plenty of people who properly estimate their taxes and don't get refunds ever. I try. My accountant gets real close most of the time unless something changes and I forget to notify him. Making loans to the government that prints whatever money they want, is a sign of fiscal retardedness.

You're essentially saying the penalties don't apply to anyone who accurately estimates their taxes and pays only what they owe. It doesn't work that way.

If someone has convinced you to keep you payments low to the IRS so you can magically avoid the penalty, you're going to be very sad when they come get it in a few years. Sounds like BS from the Internet. Good luck with that.

Actually I said everyone pays the same or close to the same...but no doubt my error.

No I didn't say the penalty doesn't apply what I have said is that the ACA does not give the IRS any other enforcement means other than taking it out of your refund...

 

[Chip Sylverne]

What about mandatory insurance for gun owners? That's a concept being promoted by quite a number of people these days as a means of gun control.

AFAIK, liability for injury caused by firearms doesn't arise from ownership as it does for motor vehicles. But the real issue is owning a firearm is a right, whereas driving on public thoroughfares is a priveledge.

I would hope that someone with a firearm on their person in a public place would absolutely be liable for damages caused by the accidental discharge of the weapon. I don't know how that would transfer to the owner if the person in possession was not the owner.

As it is, I believe most homeowners policies cover firearms accidents, at least on premisis. I know coverage is available through the NRA and specialty insurors for concealed carry. Not at all expensive.