ObamaCare: Gentlemen, Do You Like Subsidizing Women's HC costs?

[jackschmittusa]

HamburgerBoy

Actuarial tables define classes that have a statistical probability for a given outcome. They are not used to assess any individual behavior. Individual metrics may be used to increase premiums (hobby = skydiving), but not having done something related to your class does not mean you will not in the future and does not qualify for a reduction.

 

[sandorski]

 

[sactoking]

I'm not sure the wording of the bolded portion was written as intended. Could you clarify?

What I meant was that certain discriminatory practices are generally illegal, such as using race as a factor in auto rates. Other discriminatory practices are generally legal, such as using credit as a factor in auto rates. I'm not aware of any of the generally legal factors being made specifically illegal in CA.

Of course, now that I look into it a bit more I do see that CA specifically prohibits use of credit. I thought that bill had been defeated, not passed. I also thought that CA had specifically banned gender in health rates but not auto rates.

Like I said, I'm not in CA so I'm not up on all the idiosyncracies of that market.

Spoken like a regulator.

Only because I don't know CA that well, as I mentioned above. I've got no problem acknowledging when regulations are stupid.

 

[nonlnear]

What I meant was that certain discriminatory practices are generally illegal, such as using race as a factor in auto rates. Other discriminatory practices are generally legal, such as using credit as a factor in auto rates. I'm not aware of any of the generally legal factors being made specifically illegal in CA.

Of course, now that I look into it a bit more I do see that CA specifically prohibits use of credit. I thought that bill had been defeated, not passed. I also thought that CA had specifically banned gender in health rates but not auto rates.

Like I said, I'm not in CA so I'm not up on all the idiosyncracies of that market.

Only because I don't know CA that well, as I mentioned above. I've got no problem acknowledging when regulations are stupid.

Enough about CA auto rates. I only wanted to drop that to mention that there is a state that (apart from the issue of prohibiting certain variables) explicitly forbids sound statistical methodology in the support of said rating plans. Given that you aren't in Kalifornistan I'll give you a break.

I won't ask the state (as I wouldn't expect you to answer depending on the state), but you wouldn't happen to be in a state that prohibits the use of a mandatory wind-hail deductible on home insurance, would you? (I'm talking about a wind-hail deductible specifically, not a hurricane or named storm deductible. Many states allow mandatory hurricane deductibles but prohibit mandatory wind-hail deductibles.) If so, have you noticed the recent spate of filings with higher minimum all-perils deductibles? That's how regulating a "protection" for consumers actually works against them. Companies like State Farm would be happy to let policy-holders have the option of keeping a lower deductible on fire, but because wind-hail deductibles can't be raised, everybody's deductibles on all the other perils are going up too. This is how regulatory "protections" work out in reality. Also notice how the Florida home insurance market is a ghost town despite - nay, because of - a lot of regulatory "protections".

 

[fskimospy]

From an insurance standpoint that argument is irrelevant. In all actuality health insurance should not cover maternity because it is generally not considered an state of unhealth, is on almost all cases preventable, and the coverage contributes to morale hazard.

This is bizarre, and seems to be mostly caught up in a name as opposed to the actual function of the product purchased. Pregnancy is a direct threat to the health of the mother; for most of human history pregnancy and childbirth were leading causes of death among women. Health insurance in America does not actually simply stand for insurance against ill health, it is a larger health maintenance plan.

I'm quite sure you are aware of this as well.

 

[sactoking]

Enough about CA auto rates. I only wanted to drop that to mention that there is a state that (apart from the issue of prohibiting certain variables) explicitly forbids sound statistical methodology in the support of said rating plans. Given that you aren't in Kalifornistan I'll give you a break.

I won't ask the state (as I wouldn't expect you to answer depending on the state), but you wouldn't happen to be in a state that prohibits the use of a mandatory wind-hail deductible on home insurance, would you? (I'm talking about a wind-hail deductible specifically, not a hurricane or named storm deductible. Many states allow mandatory hurricane deductibles but prohibit mandatory wind-hail deductibles.) If so, have you noticed the recent spate of filings with higher minimum all-perils deductibles? That's how regulating a "protection" for consumers actually works against them. Companies like State Farm would be happy to let policy-holders have the option of keeping a lower deductible on fire, but because wind-hail deductibles can't be raised, everybody's deductibles on all the other perils are going up too. This is how regulatory "protections" work out in reality. Also notice how the Florida home insurance market is a ghost town despite - nay, because of - a lot of regulatory "protections".

We're not a cat-prone state (except for maybe earthquake and the occasional flood) so we have generally no peril-specific deductibles outside of those two lines of business, and obviously flood is pretty much all done through the NFIP; we only have 3 or so licensed carriers for excess flood. I have noticed the industry here going quickly toward percentage deductibles instead of flat, but I attribute that to risk-sharing and not to specific loss causes.

Of course, I mainly work in financial solvency and state-specific financial analysis so I'm not too heavily involved in filings, which is good because I tend to dislike the SERFF system.

As far as Florida goes, I'm not too familiar with their market and whatnot but I always thought that the lack of a diversified cat re market coupled with only one specific "regulatory protection", a consumer friendly stance on the reasonable-ness of rate increases, led to insurers withdrawing from the market under the contention that the allowed rates would lead to insolvency. Of course, Florida would be wise to not mandate too-low rates because a spate of troubled companies and insolvencies would mean loss of NAIC accreditation. Then again, Florida might not care since most of the big insurers that would be close to insolvency are domiciled in Illinois, Delaware, and other locations so Florida wouldn't necessarily have to deal with the fallout.

 

[nonlnear]

We're not a cat-prone state (except for maybe earthquake and the occasional flood) so we have generally no peril-specific deductibles outside of those two lines of business, and obviously flood is pretty much all done through the NFIP; we only have 3 or so licensed carriers for excess flood. I have noticed the industry here going quickly toward percentage deductibles instead of flat, but I attribute that to risk-sharing and not to specific loss causes.

Aside from risk sharing, it's a way to deleverage severity trend too.

As far as Florida goes, I'm not too familiar with their market and whatnot but I always thought that the lack of a diversified cat re market coupled with only one specific "regulatory protection", a consumer friendly stance on the reasonable-ness of rate increases, led to insurers withdrawing from the market under the contention that the allowed rates would lead to insolvency. Of course, Florida would be wise to not mandate too-low rates because a spate of troubled companies and insolvencies would mean loss of NAIC accreditation. Then again, Florida might not care since most of the big insurers that would be close to insolvency are domiciled in Illinois, Delaware, and other locations so Florida wouldn't necessarily have to deal with the fallout.

IMHO Florida really would have to deal with the fallout. If a big hurricane hits Miami, or the state gets two big ones in a year the whole system collapses. Citizens is insolvent. Florida would be begging for a federal bailout - and not a small one either. It's not a bailout request that would be denied lightly either, as we're talking about mortgages not beign covered by insurers that can't pay. It could spark a second housing meltdown as lenders go belly up nationwide. The worst case scenario for a bad Florida hurricane season is a global depression, and it's not too out there if you look at the numbers and consider the state of the global financial system. All because the regulators try so hard to protect consumers.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm glad so many people are happy with paying more under Obamacare especially when it saves them money. BTW, women aren't going to be the big shocker, but of course you all knew that. Risk based premiums will become a thing of the past with political considerations replacing them. When that happens please don't complain about insurance premiums.

 

[Double Trouble]

I'm always amazed (I shouldn't be, but I am) at how many people seem to be incapable of any kind of rational analysis of an issue. The mix in all sorts of other unrelated aspects, emotions, subjective opinions and so forth.

Fern, you are 100% right with regard to the effect of the regulation. Men are going to subsidize women's health care. There is no disputing that fact. For a variety of (admittedly subjective) reasons, I'm generally ok with that subsidy, but I would like to see a more transparent mechanism, and one where small businesses are not disproportionately impacted. Conceptually, if it's OK to subsidize one group, then it shouldn't be different for large organizations versus smaller ones. That's simply a differentiation made because of political/money considerations.

 

[Double Trouble]

I'm glad so many people are happy with paying more under Obamacare especially when it saves them money. BTW, women aren't going to be the big shocker, but of course you all knew that. Risk based premiums will become a thing of the past with political considerations replacing them. When that happens please don't complain about insurance premiums.

Absolutely, rational statistical analysis partially gives way to political analysis. Which group is going to have to political clout to cause trouble instead of rational cost analysis. Which group is politically connected or currently has a lot of allies in DC?

Of course that was one driving aspect of the whole healthcare overhaul from the start -> more power for Washington DC.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm always amazed (I shouldn't be, but I am) at how many people seem to be incapable of any kind of rational analysis of an issue. The mix in all sorts of other unrelated aspects, emotions, subjective opinions and so forth.

Fern, you are 100% right with regard to the effect of the regulation. Men are going to subsidize women's health care. There is no disputing that fact. For a variety of (admittedly subjective) reasons, I'm generally ok with that subsidy, but I would like to see a more transparent mechanism, and one where small businesses are not disproportionately impacted. Conceptually, if it's OK to subsidize one group, then it shouldn't be different for large organizations versus smaller ones. That's simply a differentiation made because of political/money considerations.

There ought to be a truth in legislating law. This should have been the " more affordable for some less affordable for others act".

 

[Double Trouble]

There ought to be a truth in legislating law. This should have been the " more affordable for some less affordable for others act".

If there was any such truth in legislating act, a LOT of laws would need to be renamed.

 

[SagaLore]

I don't mind.

Women use up more health services due to

- they are more likely to get a consultation about a problem while many men tend avoid doctors altogether "oh I can patch up this gaping wound myself"

- having more high risk body parts to take care of, breasts, ovaries, uterus, cervix, vagina

- pregnancy. this is an obvious one.

- generally live longer.

And since we need women to perpetuate the species, and happy healthy women equals happy men, plus the fact that men generally get paid more for the exact same jobs... I'm really okay to help pay for women's health.

 

[IronWing]

I get to subsidize other people's breeding behavior so why not this?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I don't mind.

Women use up more health services due to

- they are more likely to get a consultation about a problem while many men tend avoid doctors altogether "oh I can patch up this gaping wound myself"

- having more high risk body parts to take care of, breasts, ovaries, uterus, cervix, vagina

- pregnancy. this is an obvious one.

- generally live longer.

And since we need women to perpetuate the species, and happy healthy women equals happy men, plus the fact that men generally get paid more for the exact same jobs... I'm really okay to help pay for women's health.

You'll also get to heavily subsidize an aging demographic.

My problem is more about truth. How many knew this before the legislation was enacted? When did it's creators reveal the consequences? Did it's supporters know and kept it quiet or was it ignorance talking? It was a pig in a poke.

 

[dmcowen674]

ObamaCare: Gentlemen, Do You Like Subsidizing Women's HC costs?

In the not-to-distand past there was quite a fuss about women being charged higher HI premiums than men. Claims of higher premiums range from about 25%-50% (depending upon age, locale and other factors). Of course, this was based on insurers' claims experience. The simple fact is that women use more HC services than men.

Here is an example of one of many such articles: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/30/us/30insure.html

Well, then comes ObamaCare. Gentlemen, some/many of you will have the privilege of paying higher premiums so you can subsidize women's HI. They, of course, will be paying less thanks to you.

It would seem:

If you're a single guy, you're screwed.

If you're married, it may be somewhat of a 'wash' since your wife's cheaper premiums will offset your more expensive one.

If you're a gay (male) couple, you're doubly screwed. Both persons' premiums will be higher. Vice-versa for female couples, it's win-win here.

Oddly enough while this so-called "gender discrimination" (which is nothing of the sort actually) is not allowed for individuals or small business, it is allowed for large corporations. Meaning HI companies can still charge them less for men and more for women. Well, sSmall business takes it in the shorts gain (self-employed people would be buying as individuals).

http://www.aauw.org/learn/publications/outlook/outlookWinter2011_preview.cfm


ObamaCare: Not fair to men, not fair to small business.

Fern

It's simple

Women not healthy and happy, Man not healthy and happy

Only ATers and Republicans do not know this

 

[Jhhnn]

You'll also get to heavily subsidize an aging demographic.

My problem is more about truth. How many knew this before the legislation was enacted? When did it's creators reveal the consequences? Did it's supporters know and kept it quiet or was it ignorance talking? It was a pig in a poke.

Just because you just woke up to it doesn't mean it wasn't obvious to the ROTW all along...

Most Americans obtain coverage through group plans via their employers, where male participants have subsidized females all along... Only ~5% of insured Americans have individual policies...

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

You'll also get to heavily subsidize an aging demographic.

My problem is more about truth. How many knew this before the legislation was enacted? When did it's creators reveal the consequences? Did it's supporters know and kept it quiet or was it ignorance talking? It was a pig in a poke.

You'd have to be a pretty big idiot to not realize anything aiming to make healthcare affordable in general is going to subsidize certain groups. How many knew of this beforehand? How about anyone who read the names of the acts being enacted?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Just because you just woke up to it doesn't mean it wasn't obvious to the ROTW all along...

Most Americans obtain coverage through group plans via their employers, where male participants have subsidized females all along... Only ~5% of insured Americans have individual policies...

The subsidy has been based on relative risk as it has been for the elderly. The costs were sed on actuarial principles but the result of obamacare means that risk assignment plays a minimal part and therefore the premiums for those of lower risk will rise. Thats built in. Now there are reasons for an argument to lower premiums on a population which must use more resources and have a lower disposable income, however that means costs shift to others. We didn't hear about that from supporters though did we? You ought to know I'll be of retirement age before most here and therefore will personally benefit, so "you are mad just because you will be hurt" won't work.

 

[fskimospy]

The subsidy has been based on relative risk as it has been for the elderly. The costs were sed on actuarial principles but the result of obamacare means that risk assignment plays a minimal part and therefore the premiums for those of lower risk will rise. Thats built in. Now there are reasons for an argument to lower premiums on a population which must use more resources and have a lower disposable income, however that means costs shift to others. We didn't hear about that from supporters though did we? You ought to know I'll be of retirement age before most here and therefore will personally benefit, so "you are mad just because you will be hurt" won't work.

Were you locked in a media free bunker or something? Of course there was tons of talk about cost shifting. That's the entire point of getting the younger population to contribute to health care. People in segments of the population that used to pay less (or nothing) will now pay more.

Look, I know you are dogmatically opposed to the ACA and nothing will change your mind, but at least ground your criticisms in reality.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Were you locked in a media free bunker or something? Of course there was tons of talk about cost shifting. That's the entire point of getting the younger population to contribute to health care. People in segments of the population that used to pay less (or nothing) will now pay more.

Look, I know you are dogmatically opposed to the ACA and nothing will change your mind, but at least ground your criticisms in reality.

Yes, obama and the dems went out of their way to point this out and subsequently no one will be surprised when it hits.

 

[Jhhnn]

The subsidy has been based on relative risk as it has been for the elderly. The costs were sed on actuarial principles but the result of obamacare means that risk assignment plays a minimal part and therefore the premiums for those of lower risk will rise. Thats built in. Now there are reasons for an argument to lower premiums on a population which must use more resources and have a lower disposable income, however that means costs shift to others. We didn't hear about that from supporters though did we? You ought to know I'll be of retirement age before most here and therefore will personally benefit, so "you are mad just because you will be hurt" won't work.

~95% of people, those on group plans, will be unaffected in this move to eliminate gender as a factor, or at least it would seem so. Maybe even higher, considering that many "individual plans" are actually family plans.

As I offered earlier, being asleep at the wheel doesn't mean that it's somebody else's fault that you were... or that cost increases for the few who will experience them will be highly significant, either.

All of which is an attempt to ignore the fact that conservative business elements affect our politics in ways that prevent us from adopting the kind of healthcare systems that the rest of the First World have enjoyed for decades. We still won't have universal coverage, nor a progressive way to pay for healthcare, at all.

 

[xBiffx]

This goes along with single people that have been subsidizing married people for years through the screwed up income tax system. Seem this country likes to reward people for bad behavior. Oh, can't afford it, no problem, the single taxpayer can subsidize it. Get married, have a kid, we will reward you regardless of the intelligence of either of these choices.

Between this, tax law, and immigration law I guess its only a matter of time before we can't feed, clothe, house, and employ the word...oh wait. Seems America only loves single, childless people when it comes time to pay the bills.

 

[Wreckem]

Insurance rates absolutely take those factors into account. Smokers and overweight people pay higher premiums.

Fern

The overwhelming majority of people have group health insurance. Healthy people subsidize unhealthy people.

Prior to Obama care it was super expensive or impossible for an overweight person or a smoker to be insured without being on a group plan.

However, the difference between being a smoker or being overwieght and being a woman is different. You are born male or female. You choose to be smokers/fatasses. Health insurance should charge the same for a male or female who are the same age and same health.

 

[Wreckem]

~95% of people, those on group plans, will be unaffected in this move to eliminate gender as a factor, or at least it would seem so. Maybe even higher, considering that many "individual plans" are actually family plans.

As I offered earlier, being asleep at the wheel doesn't mean that it's somebody else's fault that you were... or that cost increases for the few who will experience them will be highly significant, either.

All of which is an attempt to ignore the fact that conservative business elements affect our politics in ways that prevent us from adopting the kind of healthcare systems that the rest of the First World have enjoyed for decades. We still won't have universal coverage, nor a progressive way to pay for healthcare, at all.

Actually big business overwhelmingly supports universal healthcare, because they want it to be like the rest of the modern world, where businesses don't pay for employee healthcare.