• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Why buy coverage?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I wonder if this will spur a rash of "sympathy" killings, with the very ill being "put down" by healthy people
 
Common Courtesy said:
1) The government can build the fine into the tax tables. Then when you provide prrof of coverage when you file, you get the "refund of the fine"

2) What is to stop people from getting coverage after XMAss and then dropping it in January. How long must one maintain coverage to avoid the fine. (How to prove it?)
Click to expand...

i totally forgot how there used to be pay by the month car insurance in fl... you got a pay by the month policy and got your tag and licence and then cancelled the insurance... hope they threw something in the legislation to deal with that...
 
senseamp said:
"This, by the way, will bankrupt the insurance companies in the end."
Sounds good, then we can finally get down to business of Medicare for all and stop this foolishness.
Click to expand...

And when Medicare rejects your claim, or you can't find a local doctor/pharmacist who will take Medicare, let us know how that works out for you.

Oh, they have to accommodate you because you're poor? Well, you'll still have to get in line and wait two months for that cardiac diagnostic test you need after going to the hospital with chest pains. In the meantime, just don't do anything strenuous.
 
xenolith said:
And when Medicare rejects your claim, or you can't find a local doctor/pharmacist who will take Medicare, let us know how that works out for you.

Oh, they have to accommodate you because you're poor? Well, you'll still have to get in line and wait two months for that cardiac diagnostic test you need after going to the hospital with chest pains. In the meantime, just don't do anything strenuous.
Click to expand...

No worse than getting claim rejected or policy rescinded by insurance company would work out.
 
senseamp said:
I think what he's getting at is that healthy people will drop coverage and pay the fine instead, causing fewer subscribers and higher price per subscriber, which then causes more people to drop out and pay the fine instead, eventually bankrupting the insurance companies. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch 🙂
Click to expand...

I'm healthy, but why on earth would I drop coverage? To save a few thousand a year, at the risk of having an expensive, unforseen medical condition that will eat up all my savings, or a catastrophic illness that will force me into bankruptcy?
 
senseamp said:
No worse than getting claim rejected or policy rescinded by insurance company would work out.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is worse. Do your research. Medicare/Medicaid claims are rejected at a higher rate than are private insurance claims.

And long waiting periods for time critical diagnostic tests is something we have not yet experienced in this country like in UHC countries.
 
xenolith said:
Yes, it is worse. Do your research. Medicare/Medicaid claims are rejected at a higher rate than are private insurance claims.

And waiting for time critical diagnostic tests is something we have not yet experienced in this country like in UHC countries.
Click to expand...

Which get better health results for half the cost.
 
We are forced to buy auto insurance, I don't see anyone driving around without auto insurance and then negotiating coverage after an accident happens.

I think it is silly to think this is a reasonable loophole. Sure the Gov't will allow the loophole, but does anyone think miserly insurance companies will be that thick-headed?
 
I won't be earning a great deal after I retire. I simply won't need to. The good thing about this bill is that I'll be sure to see that those who loved this will pay through the nose. 😛

Take care of me!
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
I won't be earning a great deal after I retire. I simply won't need to. The good thing about this bill is that I'll be sure to see that those who loved this will pay through the nose. 😛

Take care of me!
Click to expand...


All together now...

Take care of me!

Take care of me!

Take care of me!

Take care of me!

Take care of me!
 
shira said:
This article is nonsense.

According to this article . . .

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2009-09-15-insurance-costs_N.htm

. . . the average cost of a group policy for a family in the U.S. in 2009 was $13,375 (up by 5% from 2008), and the average cost for a group policy for a single person was $4,824. Let's guess that costs went up another 5% in 2010, meaning that the average group policy for a family and single cost about $14,045 and $5065, respectively, in 2010.

The average health "profile" of those individuals and families not covered by group policies (whether they're actually covered by individual policies or aren't covered at all) is almost certainly VERY similar to the profile of those covered by group policies. Meaning that the entire population (excluding those on Medicare) could be covered by premiums of $5000/individual and $14,000/family, and the insurance companies would still make a profit.

So where do you get $15,000/individual and $24,000/family? Magic?
Click to expand...

Don't let partisanship cloud your judgment. We (family of 5) have crappy insurance w a $5000 deductible 3M indemnity policy and it's $12000 a year. These policies or close to them (catastrophic) will no longer be allowed. This drives costs up futher. Then you have to add all the previously uninsurable, insure pre existing conditions, and have no cap on limits. Look to Mass care if you want reality, not CBO BS, upwards of 250% at least.

Then we haven't even figured millions who will not buy insurance at all (ever heard of tax revolts?) well this is a puny statutory fine trivially paid and insurance will go up as a result of them not participating until they get sick.


You're very naive if you think people won't game this system and drive costs through the roof.
 
Isnt this basically what is breaking RomneyCare in Mass? People paying the fine until they need insurance? The remaining idiots who stay on the plans see their rates sky rocket to make up the shortfall?
 
shira said:
This article is nonsense.

According to this article . . .

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2009-09-15-insurance-costs_N.htm

. . . the average cost of a group policy for a family in the U.S. in 2009 was $13,375 (up by 5% from 2008), and the average cost for a group policy for a single person was $4,824. Let's guess that costs went up another 5% in 2010, meaning that the average group policy for a family and single cost about $14,045 and $5065, respectively, in 2010.

The average health "profile" of those individuals and families not covered by group policies (whether they're actually covered by individual policies or aren't covered at all) is almost certainly VERY similar to the profile of those covered by group policies. Meaning that the entire population (excluding those on Medicare) could be covered by premiums of $5000/individual and $14,000/family, and the insurance companies would still make a profit.

So where do you get $15,000/individual and $24,000/family? Magic?
Click to expand...

First the assumption that the "profile" of the people covered by group policies is the same as everyone is false. The uninsured and rescinded have a disproportionate number of individuals with preexisting conditions, thus this group has much higher cost than group policy group. This will increase the average cost.

Second the assumption that all group policy will qualify under the new rules is also false. There are special exemption for preexisting condition, catastrophic plans, and plans that aren't good enough that won't be allow to continue. These bring down the average policy cost versus what will occur under the new bill.

There is another effect that you didn't think of at all is supply and demand. Demand will go up, while supply is relatively constant, so price go up.

These three effects will cause a quite rapid increase in the average health insurance.

The author is probably making the assumption that people will think like him; pay the fine and just buy insurance when you need it. If I remember correctly, ~20% of population has ~80% of cost. So if only these individuals(which will rotate around year over year) bought insurance and the rest paid the fine, then the cost of insurance would increase 300% before the fines subsided some of the cost.

I don't think people will be allow to do what the author thinks. A simple waiting period(7-30 days) before the policy actually starts would prevent most people from trying such a plan because one accident could destroy you financially before coverage would start.
 
Zebo said:
Don't let partisanship cloud your judgment. We (family of 5) have crappy insurance w a $5000 deductible 3M indemnity policy and it's $12000 a year. These policies or close to them (catastrophic) will no longer be allowed. This drives costs up futher. Then you have to add all the previously uninsurable, insure pre existing conditions, and have no cap on limits. Look to Mass care if you want reality, not CBO BS, upwards of 250% at least.

Then we haven't even figured millions who will not buy insurance at all (ever heard of tax revolts?) well this is a puny statutory fine trivially paid and insurance will go up as a result of them not participating until they get sick.

You're very naive if you think people won't game this system and drive costs through the roof.
Click to expand...
I don't know if this is addressed in the bill, but wouldn't this problem be fixed by requiring say a wait time, e.g, the plan doesn't kick in until the next first of the month?
 
Scaming the system by waiting until catastrophe strikes to buy insurance
makes for a good rightwing talking point, but something tells me that in practice it may not work out so well for ya 🙄
 
You people quibbling over his costs estimates because your policy doesn't cost that much haven't been paying attention. For one thing new regulation on how HI policies will be going into effect, the cost structure will naturally change.

For another, JFC - a major point of this bill is to cover those with expensive pre-existing conditions - and has been pointed out numerous times by those on the left - and other HI policy holders will be subsizing them.

Excepting those states already having rigorous HI requirments, studies have shown sharp increases in HI costs.
----------------

Anyway, the interesting thing will be to see how the Law of Unintended Consequences will come into play here. Congress is notorius for that.

So yeah, something unintended IS going to happen, the question is what?

And yes, the system is going to be 'gamed'.

Critics of this bill have long cautioned exactly what the author is talking about.

Fern
 
Denninger's argument is very good IF it's possible to get insurance IMMEDIATELY. Like on the way to the hospital (pre-existing being that you're bleeding out, but they have to take you anyway). If there is a delay of some days or a week or two then it's not meaningful.

I think it's quite clear that with the government now mandating coverage most of us will see rate increases. It's actually inevitable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top