Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,265
- 126
Starting 2014 the way that premiums are determined will be more based on societal concerns as defined by the writers of the bill and less on actuarial costs. Older patients and those who have a higher likelihood of heavy utilization of the health care system will be required to pay less than their risk indicates. That's good for them and I understand the reasoning. The thing of it is that we never hear of the downsides to these plans from those who push it. This won't bring down costs because this isn't health care reform, it's insurance regulation. Nothing is being done nor contemplated to find out what needs to be done and then enact rational legislation based on real world considerations. That's too hard. So we have this and it will mean that I and others who are within ten or so years of retirement will benefit. To make up the shortfall the cost equation dictates that rates will have to increase on those who are younger and healthier and it won't be a trivial matter and is quite independent of anything to do with insurance companies themselves. In fact they're trying to figure out how to implement this and other requirements created by Obamacare as it's called. I learned of this because my brother is an actuary and he's one who is charged with how to spread the costs around and I understand it's going to be painful. This has been curiously omitted in discussions but it's in the bill, or at least the consequences of it are plain to see. Beating dead horse #3 today we should have seized on the moment and tried something truly useful and considered health care and it's future rather than pulling out what I see as a party piece. That there is no idea whatsoever on how to deal with long term care is merely one example albeit a significant one of a problem that we cannot even effectively approach in today's legislative climate.
Facebook
Twitter