4 ms·
"The legislation would enable companies to coerce employees into participating in wellness programs that could require them to undergo genetic testing and provi
by rsync 10y ago
"The legislation would enable companies to coerce employees into participating in wellness programs that could require them to undergo genetic testing and provide genetic information about themselves and their families."
This is the price. There will be other prices.
So-called "red state morons" who "vote against their own economic interests" often tout a hazy, poorly thought out rationale of "freedom" as the driving force behind their choices.
There is, however, a decent heuristic at work here. They know that there's no such thing as a free lunch.
Just because they have no idea how they'll be made to pay for it doesn't mean they're wrong.
- mcguire 10y ago'There's no such thing as a free lunch' seems to be code for 'I've got mine, screw the rest of you.'
- drzaiusapelord 10y ago> They know that there's no such thing as a free lunch. I'm already paying for health insurance. Its not, nor has it ever been, a free lunch. Diving into my genetics is completely uncalled for. Stop calling health care buyers moochers, thanks. Also somehow almost all other wealthy western nations do better than us by almost all metrics in healthcare and they don't need to do this either. What's wrong with Americans?
- rsync 10y agoCovering existing conditions is a wonderful thing. And it is a free lunch. Regular wellness checks, etc., while wonderful, are a free lunch. They are not insurable. You can't insure for regular, scheduled services. Because math.[1] If you see things like this - things that are either exorbitantly expensive or defy the bounds of underwriting or both you should expect to pay other prices, elsewhere. [1] This is insurance 101. You cannot insure against regular, universally consumed services. There is no underwriting pool there. You cannot buy an auto policy that includes regular tire replacement - and if you could, the premiums would include 100% of the tires cost (plus admin).
- Ericson2314 10y agoThink of preventative healthcare itself as insurance against ailments popping appearing only once they're far more expensive to fix.
- tghw 10y agoI'm pretty sure most people with an existing condition would prefer not to have it at all than to cost insurance companies more and have that covered. It's not a free lunch. They paid the admission fee with their health. Regular wellness checkups are also not a free lunch. They're priced into the policies. You absolutely can insure against regularly consumed services, as long as the premium is enough to cover it and to do the underwriting for the unexpected expenses. Look at dental or vision insurance. The vast majority of what they cover are regular wellness visits. Putting that aside, free wellness visits are also in the interest of the insurer. It's far cheaper to prevent disease or to treat it early than it is to deal with it later. Those savings from this so-called "free lunch" ends up right back in their pockets.
- rsync 10y ago"You absolutely can insure against regularly consumed services, as long as the premium is enough to cover it" That is called fee for service. Maybe it gets bundled with actual insurance, but it's not insurance. Regular, universal expenses are not underwritable. Insurance is a technical term that has a strict meaning. You are absolutely correct that regular wellness checkups, etc., can positively affect the outcomes of that insurance pool, but they are not, themselves, insurable. They have to be paid for somewhere.
- tghw 10y agoThey actually are underwritable. Not everyone utilizes wellness visits, just like not everyone gets an x-ray, in a given year. Insurance companies can price in the expected value of wellness visits based on the participation rate. Therefore, it fits the definition of insurance, even though the likelihood of a claim is relatively high.
- 10y ago