Mitt Romney debates...himself

[CycloWizard]

This is how pre-existing conditions work in the current system-

http://gawker.com/5840024/ron-pauls-campaign-manager-died-of-pneumonia-penniless-and-uninsured

If you can demonstrate mathematically a better way to do things with balanced equations, please do so. The idea of forcing a company to insure someone they know will cost them more money than they are allowed to charge him is simple thievery. A company exists to make money. Insurance is simply the company betting that you will pay more in premiums than you will take out of their pot via care provided. You've unbalanced the equation by forcing a company to act in direct contradiction to the very reason it exists. It's completely unethical. You can argue that it's unethical for an insurance company to allow you to die in the streets, but in the end that's only because you've failed to understand why they exist. Next, you'll force home insurers to provide flood insurance to victims of hurricanes after their houses have already been flooded - there exists no logical distinction between that case and the case of preexisting conditions in healthcare.

 

[Schmide]

If you can demonstrate mathematically a better way to do things with balanced equations, please do so. The idea of forcing a company to insure someone they know will cost them more money than they are allowed to charge him is simple thievery. A company exists to make money. Insurance is simply the company betting that you will pay more in premiums than you will take out of their pot via care provided. You've unbalanced the equation by forcing a company to act in direct contradiction to the very reason it exists. It's completely unethical. You can argue that it's unethical for an insurance company to allow you to die in the streets, but in the end that's only because you've failed to understand why they exist. Next, you'll force home insurers to provide flood insurance to victims of hurricanes after their houses have already been flooded - there exists no logical distinction between that case and the case of preexisting conditions in healthcare.

I don't think you understand actuarial math. There is a risk reward for every ensured item/person, the idea is you spread out the cost based on statistics and keep a percentage for profit/bookkeeping. Not every home is going to be flooded in a flood, but many homes have to be insured to make the math work. Even if someone/something has a pre-existing condition/propensity to disaster, there is a cost curve to it. In some cases it can actually be cost effective, as those who know it are more likely to manage their risks. Insurance is a greater than zero fund, some things cost more, some things cost less.

There are plenty of pool based economies. For example, many tax dollars are routed to border, flood, earthquake, etc areas from areas that have no reason to do so. It would be cheaper for everyone to live on a bedrock hill where bad weather was rare, but no one is proposing that.

The big difference here is private companies are managing these situations.

 

[CycloWizard]

I don't think you understand actuarial math. There is a risk reward for every ensured item/person, the idea is you spread out the cost based on statistics and keep a percentage for profit/bookkeeping. Not every home is going to be flooded in a flood, but many homes have to be insured to make the math work. Even if someone/something has a pre-existing condition/propensity to disaster, there is a cost curve to it. In some cases it can actually be cost effective, as those who know it are more likely to manage their risks. Insurance is a greater than zero fund, some things cost more, some things cost less.

There are plenty of pool based economies. For example, many tax dollars are routed to border, flood, earthquake, etc areas from areas that have no reason to do so. It would be cheaper for everyone to live on a bedrock hill where bad weather was rare, but no one is proposing that.

The big difference here is private companies are managing these situations.

I think I understand the math just fine, thanks. The idea that a company would knowingly accept even one person when they knew they would lose money on that person is absurd. What would their motivation be for such a decision? If that were true, then there would be no need for legislative arm-twisting to force them to do it. Sure, they can offset it somewhat by raising rates on everyone else, but in the end forcing them to insure someone who is about to undergo a million bucks worth of treatment is a guaranteed loss.

Your assertion that it is sometimes cost-effective to insure at-risk individuals is all fine and dandy but ignores the very point in question. The question is whether you would sell tornado insurance to a home that has already been destroyed by a tornado or life insurance to the family of someone who has already died. Of course you would not unless you're a complete moron. A pre-existing condition is the healthcare equivalent of these things. No amount of hocus pocus will make that work out for you. You've simply avoided addressing my point, preferring a strawman, because you know my real argument is devastating to your case.

 

[ivwshane]

I think I understand the math just fine, thanks. The idea that a company would knowingly accept even one person when they knew they would lose money on that person is absurd. What would their motivation be for such a decision? If that were true, then there would be no need for legislative arm-twisting to force them to do it. Sure, they can offset it somewhat by raising rates on everyone else, but in the end forcing them to insure someone who is about to undergo a million bucks worth of treatment is a guaranteed loss.

Your assertion that it is sometimes cost-effective to insure at-risk individuals is all fine and dandy but ignores the very point in question. The question is whether you would sell tornado insurance to a home that has already been destroyed by a tornado or life insurance to the family of someone who has already died. Of course you would not unless you're a complete moron. A pre-existing condition is the healthcare equivalent of these things. No amount of hocus pocus will make that work out for you. You've simply avoided addressing my point, preferring a strawman, because you know my real argument is devastating to your case.

The most efficient thing to do is to go to a single payer system, remove the middleman and the profit motive. Everyone gets covered everyone pays in, preventative care goes up, major catastrophic care goes down.

Thanks for arguing for a single payer system

 

[Schmide]

I think I understand the math just fine, thanks. The idea that a company would knowingly accept even one person when they knew they would lose money on that person is absurd.

It's kind of funny you say you understand the math, yet argue from a single point position. If you're going to declare straw man, you can't do so from this singularity.

What would their motivation be for such a decision? If that were true, then there would be no need for legislative arm-twisting to force them to do it. Sure, they can offset it somewhat by raising rates on everyone else, but in the end forcing them to insure someone who is about to undergo a million bucks worth of treatment is a guaranteed loss.

Lets take a non-polarizing health issue like a heart condition. The health industry pays for equipment/personnel to deal with heart health. Not everyone uses these items but we all pay for it. If you only insure healthy people, there is no reason to maintain these machines/people.

Your assertion that it is sometimes cost-effective to insure at-risk individuals is all fine and dandy but ignores the very point in question.

The question is whether you would sell tornado insurance to a home that has already been destroyed by a tornado or life insurance to the family of someone who has already died.

This proves that you don't understand actuarial math. There is always a chance that a tornado will strike the same place twice, but there is another quantifiable chance that it will never strike again. You set the rates to spread this out to all those in the pool, maintaining solvency with profit/bookkeeping overhead.

When things go above and beyond this equilibrium, our government/populous steps in and provides funding allow things to return to normal. (Cough Cough Katrina)

Of course you would not unless you're a complete moron. A pre-existing condition is the healthcare equivalent of these things. No amount of hocus pocus will make that work out for you. You've simply avoided addressing my point, preferring a strawman, because you know my real argument is devastating to your case.

It is so funny that you put it this way. Arguing that what I put forth was a strawman, rather than the reality of a probability based business most people understand. I understand what you put forth, it is a short sighted version of how things work. (should work) Insurance companies often play against the averages, preferring to maximize profits against the actual math that makes perfectly sustainable/profitable pools a reality.

 

[Jhhnn]

Heh. the truth is that most people develop their "pre-existing" conditions while insured, and then through extended unemployment or a new job lose their coverage in the process, or end up with inadequate cheap coverage. That happens a lot as we age- many people will develop "pre-existing" conditions before they reach age 65, and few jobs last a lifetime anymore. Just when they need insurance the most, it's gone. Even if they've paid into the system for 30 years, too bad, so sad. All insurors want to know is "what have you done for me lately, like this month, chump?"

All the money they made off you over the last 30 years doesn't matter a bit.