4 ms·

Why should the average 20-30+ year old even carry insurance? The penalty is only $250 a year, rising to $750 in a few years. They can't deny you insurance based

by rajat 17y ago

Why should the average 20-30+ year old even carry insurance? The penalty is only $250 a year, rising to $750 in a few years. They can't deny you insurance based on pre-exiting issues. So why not just pay the penalty, which can be substantially less than the policy, until you have an issue?

waterlesscloud 17y ago
It's a very good question. Of course, if the healthy behave that way, it drives up the premiums for everyone else.
chancho 17y ago
$750/year is about the cost of so-called "catastrophic" insurance: high deductible, low monthly. Worthless for the kind of chronic ailments that old people suffer, invaluable for things like car accidents or leukemia. Only an idiot would rather pay the fine than buy this kind of insurance.
- waterlesscloud 17y ago
  My understanding is that this type of insurance is not an option under this law.
- rajat 17y ago
  Catastrophic insurance, with a high deductible, is what I carry. They are going to be grandfathered, but no new policies of this kind will be allowed under this law. An all encompassing health insurance, with the kind of deductible they have legislated, is not cheap.
  - chancho 17y ago
    Ah, I wasn't aware. (Shows what I know about this bill.) While catastrophic insurance is a good deal for young unmarried people, part of me thinks it's not how health insurance is supposed to work. If you're not spreading the cost of caring for old/sick people among young/healthy people then what's the point? The other part of me thinks it's just a handout to the insurance industry and people such as yourself shouldn't have to pay a dime for someone else's overpriced cholesterol drugs or 3D ultrasound.
    - wisty 17y ago
      Catastrophic insurance is exactly how insurance is meant to work. If you want to save for medical procedures in your old age, you can get a savers account. The whole point of insurance is that a big financial hit (caused by your house burning down, cancer, whatever) causes a non-linear amount of suffering. A few dollars (paid by 99 lucky healthy people) isn't noticeable, but the one guy who can now afford his emergency operation is a thousand times happier. Total cost = 100$750. Total happiness = 99 (-meh) + 1 * (OMG I'll see my grandchildren!!!). I don't like the whole "forced savings" thing. If you get to 80, and can't afford an operation that you probably don't need, and didn't save for it, and your family won't bail you out ... everyone is mortal. I guess you could say that people don't have the discipline to save. Fine. Tax the young, and give cash to old people. But don't treat health insurance as a pension - why should young people subsidize old people who want expensive (but most likely useless) operations, but not subsidize old people who can live with the fact that they are mortal and would rather have few bucks to spend at the Bingo club?
      - foldr 17y ago
        What do you do if you get a serious condition in your 20s? Not particularly common, but I certainly wouldn't feel good if I wasn't covered for it. Also, most people literally cannot afford to save up hundreds of thousands of dollars over their lifetime. Nonetheless, this is what they might end up having to pay in medical expenses. I can't see any hint of a practical or sensible option in what you're saying.
        wisty 17y ago
        If you get a serious condition in your 20s, that's what you should be covered by with cat- insurance. If everyone needs "hundreds of thousands of dollars over their lifetime" they are getting too much healthcare. That's my other point - we sink all the money into more-or-less useless operations on old people who are about to kick the bucket. Healthcare is best directed towards younger people, where it can make a difference. Old people often get stuff that's likely to be net negative (side effects, complications, etc) because the hospitals want to make money off the procedures.
Daniel_Newby 17y ago
"Why should the average 20-30+ year old even carry insurance?" Because an accident or infection can run up $50k in costs before you can even put the paperwork through.
- rsheridan6 17y ago
  Can, but probably won't, and if it does, the average twenty-something doesn't have so many assets that it's a huge loss to declare bankruptcy. Besides, twentysomethings all* think they're immortal and that nothing bad will happen to them anyway. *And by all, I mean some.
  - gjm11 17y ago
    Surely the main downside to declaring bankruptcy isn't what it does to your present assets but what it does to your future prospects.
    - rsheridan6 17y ago
      That depends on who you are, what you have, and what you want to do. For many people, this would just mean lower credit limits and a delay in house buying plans, if you had any. The bottom line for me is that, if I were a healthy young person, I would not pay for health insurance under this plan. Actually, when I was a young healthy person, I didn't pay for insurance - I went uninsured from when I was off my parents' plan until I was 29. So did lots of others. The case for buying health insurance is now far weaker than it was then.

by rajat 17y ago

waterlesscloud 17y ago

It's a very good question. Of course, if the healthy behave that way, it drives up the premiums for everyone else.

chancho 17y ago

$750/year is about the cost of so-called "catastrophic" insurance: high deductible, low monthly. Worthless for the kind of chronic ailments that old people suffer, invaluable for things like car accidents or leukemia. Only an idiot would rather pay the fine than buy this kind of insurance.

waterlesscloud 17y ago
My understanding is that this type of insurance is not an option under this law.
rajat 17y ago
Catastrophic insurance, with a high deductible, is what I carry. They are going to be grandfathered, but no new policies of this kind will be allowed under this law. An all encompassing health insurance, with the kind of deductible they have legislated, is not cheap.
- chancho 17y ago
  Ah, I wasn't aware. (Shows what I know about this bill.) While catastrophic insurance is a good deal for young unmarried people, part of me thinks it's not how health insurance is supposed to work. If you're not spreading the cost of caring for old/sick people among young/healthy people then what's the point? The other part of me thinks it's just a handout to the insurance industry and people such as yourself shouldn't have to pay a dime for someone else's overpriced cholesterol drugs or 3D ultrasound.
  - wisty 17y ago
    Catastrophic insurance is exactly how insurance is meant to work. If you want to save for medical procedures in your old age, you can get a savers account. The whole point of insurance is that a big financial hit (caused by your house burning down, cancer, whatever) causes a non-linear amount of suffering. A few dollars (paid by 99 lucky healthy people) isn't noticeable, but the one guy who can now afford his emergency operation is a thousand times happier. Total cost = 100$750. Total happiness = 99 (-meh) + 1 * (OMG I'll see my grandchildren!!!). I don't like the whole "forced savings" thing. If you get to 80, and can't afford an operation that you probably don't need, and didn't save for it, and your family won't bail you out ... everyone is mortal. I guess you could say that people don't have the discipline to save. Fine. Tax the young, and give cash to old people. But don't treat health insurance as a pension - why should young people subsidize old people who want expensive (but most likely useless) operations, but not subsidize old people who can live with the fact that they are mortal and would rather have few bucks to spend at the Bingo club?
    - foldr 17y ago
      What do you do if you get a serious condition in your 20s? Not particularly common, but I certainly wouldn't feel good if I wasn't covered for it. Also, most people literally cannot afford to save up hundreds of thousands of dollars over their lifetime. Nonetheless, this is what they might end up having to pay in medical expenses. I can't see any hint of a practical or sensible option in what you're saying.
      - wisty 17y ago
        If you get a serious condition in your 20s, that's what you should be covered by with cat- insurance. If everyone needs "hundreds of thousands of dollars over their lifetime" they are getting too much healthcare. That's my other point - we sink all the money into more-or-less useless operations on old people who are about to kick the bucket. Healthcare is best directed towards younger people, where it can make a difference. Old people often get stuff that's likely to be net negative (side effects, complications, etc) because the hospitals want to make money off the procedures.

Daniel_Newby 17y ago

"Why should the average 20-30+ year old even carry insurance?" Because an accident or infection can run up $50k in costs before you can even put the paperwork through.

rsheridan6 17y ago
Can, but probably won't, and if it does, the average twenty-something doesn't have so many assets that it's a huge loss to declare bankruptcy. Besides, twentysomethings all* think they're immortal and that nothing bad will happen to them anyway. *And by all, I mean some.
- gjm11 17y ago
  Surely the main downside to declaring bankruptcy isn't what it does to your present assets but what it does to your future prospects.
  - rsheridan6 17y ago
    That depends on who you are, what you have, and what you want to do. For many people, this would just mean lower credit limits and a delay in house buying plans, if you had any. The bottom line for me is that, if I were a healthy young person, I would not pay for health insurance under this plan. Actually, when I was a young healthy person, I didn't pay for insurance - I went uninsured from when I was off my parents' plan until I was 29. So did lots of others. The case for buying health insurance is now far weaker than it was then.