Pages: 1

 

2008-02-25 11:15:12
apollo_fi
The Flying Kalakukko.
+94|6527|The lunar module
Insurance companies evaluate risks and then offer pricing and coverage that are appropriate and profitable based on those risks.

Improvements in DNA testing have given insurance companies the means to evaluate health risks accurately. There’s a big difference between someone saying, ‘I have a strong family history,’ and saying, ‘I only have a 13 percent chance of not getting breast cancer during the time you’re insuring me.’

Now, if the insurers don't take information like this into account when offering pricing and coverage, they aren't being insurance companies.

The kind of behavior that most of us want — comparable coverage for everyone under nondiscriminatory pricing rules — is flatly not something an insurance company can offer.

Sources

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/healt … ei=5087%0A

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/ … 8627.shtml
2008-02-25 11:53:49
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|6732|Salt Lake City

I would dare say that most people have their insurance through their employer.  As such the insurance company doesn't get to evaluate your medical condition(s) prior to coverage.
2008-02-25 15:04:08
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6525|Global Command
Obama will save us from the evil insurance companies.
2008-02-25 15:13:06
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6401|North Carolina

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

I would dare say that most people have their insurance through their employer.  As such the insurance company doesn't get to evaluate your medical condition(s) prior to coverage.
If they're insured, this is often the case, but a large portion of Americans aren't insured in the first place.

If they have a personal plan, they are definitely scrutinized on their health habits and vulnerabilities.  I remember what it was like buying my own insurance without my employer helping out some -- it sucked.
2008-02-25 15:13:16
logitech487
Member
+16|6399|From The State Of Taxes
I like to see him do it with out a tax increase
2008-02-25 15:13:50
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6686|Tampa Bay Florida

ATG wrote:

Obama will save us from the evil insurance companies.
lawl

unless you're being serious, in that case, lawl

Obamas cool but no ones THAT good
2008-02-25 15:29:49
Gawwad
My way or Haddaway!
+212|6681|Espoo, Finland
So people with a high risk for getting sick can't afford insurances?
Guess that helps evolution. Think positive.
2008-02-25 15:32:15
Catbox
forgiveness
+505|6712
Obama to the rescue... lol...  More taxes and more taxes and more taxes... yahooo
Love is the answer
2008-02-25 15:42:49
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6525|Global Command
I must admit there must be limits to capitalism.
2008-02-25 16:35:35
Dersmikner
Member
+147|6494|Texas

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

I would dare say that most people have their insurance through their employer.  As such the insurance company doesn't get to evaluate your medical condition(s) prior to coverage.
Not entirely correct. Instead of buying a group policy, we buy everyone an individual policy. We pay $X per month for each employee's health insurance and if their pre-existing condition bumps their rate over that amount they are responsible for the rest.
2008-02-25 16:57:51
PureFodder
Member
+225|6282

ATG wrote:

Obama will save us from the evil insurance companies.
The reason for the increased media attention to the US healthcare crisis is mainly coming from the business sector. They're started to notice that paying for their workers healthcare system with twice the comparable costs of other countries makes you uncompetative with foreign businesses.

It looks like manufacturing is going to square up to insurance companies is a fight over money.
2008-02-26 06:25:53
apollo_fi
The Flying Kalakukko.
+94|6527|The lunar module

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

I would dare say that most people have their insurance through their employer.  As such the insurance company doesn't get to evaluate your medical condition(s) prior to coverage.
I actually didn't know about group policies. I assumed the US system would be in general like what dersmikner describes:

Dersmikner wrote:

Not entirely correct. Instead of buying a group policy, we buy everyone an individual policy. We pay $X per month for each employee's health insurance and if their pre-existing condition bumps their rate over that amount they are responsible for the rest.
I'm slightly concerned about the slow but perceptible decline in the quality of our (Finland's) public healthcare services, and I can foresee a situation where it would be beneficial for me, and my immediate family, to supplement our publicly provided healthcare (and the employer-provided healthcare) with private health insurance.

On the other hand, I believe the only real alternative would be to stop the erosion of our public healthcare. I've got enough cancer, diabetes, alcoholism and insanity in the family to guarantee unaffordable insurance rates... if the rates will be based on DNA testing. Srsly.
2008-02-26 06:34:18
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6286|Éire
We've had a similar dilemma in Ireland recently with 'risk equalisation' ...i.e. private health insurers having to pay rival state health insurers compensation because the private companies are allowed to pick and choose the healthiest of clients whereas the State insurer doesn't have the same privilege.

http://www.irishhealth.com/index.html?l … mp;id=8735
2008-02-26 07:02:13
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|6732|Salt Lake City

apollo_fi wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

I would dare say that most people have their insurance through their employer.  As such the insurance company doesn't get to evaluate your medical condition(s) prior to coverage.
I actually didn't know about group policies. I assumed the US system would be in general like what dersmikner describes:

Dersmikner wrote:

Not entirely correct. Instead of buying a group policy, we buy everyone an individual policy. We pay $X per month for each employee's health insurance and if their pre-existing condition bumps their rate over that amount they are responsible for the rest.
I'm slightly concerned about the slow but perceptible decline in the quality of our (Finland's) public healthcare services, and I can foresee a situation where it would be beneficial for me, and my immediate family, to supplement our publicly provided healthcare (and the employer-provided healthcare) with private health insurance.

On the other hand, I believe the only real alternative would be to stop the erosion of our public healthcare. I've got enough cancer, diabetes, alcoholism and insanity in the family to guarantee unaffordable insurance rates... if the rates will be based on DNA testing. Srsly.
I would dare say that what Dersmikner described is not the standard method of providing health insurance through employers.  Companies tend to find they can get better rates with a group policy.

 

Pages: 1

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard