3 ms·

I believe people should be required to pay according to their ability. Right now, a young person 20 yrs old right out of college earning 40k a year, will pay <

by fnid2 17y ago

I believe people should be required to pay according to their ability. Right now, a young person 20 yrs old right out of college earning 40k a year, will pay < $200 a month for insurance. Under the new health care plan with the same premiums for the young, an older person who earns $400k/yr will pay about $600 a month for insurance. See where the inequality erupts? This is the vision for the new health care plan and it is carrying much future baggage.

icey 17y ago
Those are some funny numbers you're throwing out there; I'd love to see some citations. (Disclaimer: I work in the health insurance industry and I specifically deal with health insurance rating systems, so linking anything generated by politicians on either side of the fence isn't going to cut it.)
- fnid2 17y ago
  http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/11/19/us/politics/1119-plan-comparison.html#tab=8 http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/11/19/us/politics/11... This side by side comparison says, House version Premiums for older people cannot be more than double the premium for young adults. Senate version Premiums for older people cannot be more than three times the premium for young adults.
  - icey 17y ago
    Okay, this argument makes much more sense now; your issue isn't with the actual rates but with the variance between the lowest rates and the highest where age is concerned. I don't have the time to generate the full model, but generally speaking the Senate version of the bill isn't that far off from where variance is in most states today - if you compare the costs between a 20 year old and a 50 year old, you're going to see the 50 year old pays around 3 times what a 20 year old pays. A 64 year old will pay between 5 and 6 times more (these examples are using data from a state with very lax insurance regulation by the way; in states like California and Massachusetts, the variance will be lower). Insurance rates are determined by guessing at the risk of any given pool of people and the estimating costs that may be incurred given the riskiness of the pool. By forcing healthy people to buy insurance, the pool of insured people should become less risky; hopefully drawing costs down. I've got no idea as to whether or not that might happen, but assuming the actuaries continue to derive rates the way that they always have; it should lower costs on the whole.

by fnid2 17y ago

icey 17y ago

Those are some funny numbers you're throwing out there; I'd love to see some citations. (Disclaimer: I work in the health insurance industry and I specifically deal with health insurance rating systems, so linking anything generated by politicians on either side of the fence isn't going to cut it.)

fnid2 17y ago
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/11/19/us/politics/1119-plan-comparison.html#tab=8 http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/11/19/us/politics/11... This side by side comparison says, House version Premiums for older people cannot be more than double the premium for young adults. Senate version Premiums for older people cannot be more than three times the premium for young adults.
- icey 17y ago
  Okay, this argument makes much more sense now; your issue isn't with the actual rates but with the variance between the lowest rates and the highest where age is concerned. I don't have the time to generate the full model, but generally speaking the Senate version of the bill isn't that far off from where variance is in most states today - if you compare the costs between a 20 year old and a 50 year old, you're going to see the 50 year old pays around 3 times what a 20 year old pays. A 64 year old will pay between 5 and 6 times more (these examples are using data from a state with very lax insurance regulation by the way; in states like California and Massachusetts, the variance will be lower). Insurance rates are determined by guessing at the risk of any given pool of people and the estimating costs that may be incurred given the riskiness of the pool. By forcing healthy people to buy insurance, the pool of insured people should become less risky; hopefully drawing costs down. I've got no idea as to whether or not that might happen, but assuming the actuaries continue to derive rates the way that they always have; it should lower costs on the whole.