5 ms·

What was the lifetime max on this plan? It probably would have left people out in the cold when they most needed it. I don't think it's wrong to expect insuranc

What was the lifetime max on this plan? It probably would have left people out in the cold when they most needed it. I don't think it's wrong to expect insurance to cover people when they most need it, which was largely not true with million dollar lifetime caps. Even with the ACA, employers have the best of both worlds. Expensive older people are covered by the government, and anyone who gets to expensive can be shuffled off with a little cover and the joy of "at-will" employment.

jandrewrogers 8y ago
The lifetime max was multiple millions, I don't remember the exact number. As I stated, it was just about the best policy available for any amount of money. There is no credible way to spin this as actually being worse for those employees. I like to hire "expensive older" engineers, so dialing healthcare benefits up to eleven was intended to attract that kind of employee. All insurance policies have implicit lifetime maximums, unless the laws of economics and finance have been repealed.
rayiner 8y ago
> What was the lifetime max on this plan? It probably would have left people out in the cold when they most needed it. I don't think it's wrong to expect insurance to cover people when they most need it, which was largely not true with million dollar lifetime caps. Note that lifetime caps are a lot more generous than what they have in say the UK, where you don’t get treatment if it costs more than $50-75k per year of extended life. (So to blow through a million dollars, the treatment would have to be expected to produce 15-20 years of extra healthy life. Most treatments offered when people “need it the most” can’t make that sort of promise).
- mattlondon 8y ago
  > Note that lifetime caps are a lot more generous than what they have in say the UK, where you don’t get treatment if it costs more than $50-75k per year of extended life Do you have any data for that? Sounds odd.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-28983924 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-28983924. It’s not odd at all. It’s a basic thing that makes the UK’s health system work. US insurers (in the past) would piss away a half a million or a million on uncertain treatments. (And then the family would go out of pocket, go broke, and there would be an article on medical bankruptcies.) The UK doesn’t do that. Instead, it’s very aggressive about justifying costs with expected outcomes.

jandrewrogers 8y ago

The lifetime max was multiple millions, I don't remember the exact number. As I stated, it was just about the best policy available for any amount of money. There is no credible way to spin this as actually being worse for those employees. I like to hire "expensive older" engineers, so dialing healthcare benefits up to eleven was intended to attract that kind of employee. All insurance policies have implicit lifetime maximums, unless the laws of economics and finance have been repealed.

rayiner 8y ago

> What was the lifetime max on this plan? It probably would have left people out in the cold when they most needed it. I don't think it's wrong to expect insurance to cover people when they most need it, which was largely not true with million dollar lifetime caps. Note that lifetime caps are a lot more generous than what they have in say the UK, where you don’t get treatment if it costs more than $50-75k per year of extended life. (So to blow through a million dollars, the treatment would have to be expected to produce 15-20 years of extra healthy life. Most treatments offered when people “need it the most” can’t make that sort of promise).

mattlondon 8y ago
> Note that lifetime caps are a lot more generous than what they have in say the UK, where you don’t get treatment if it costs more than $50-75k per year of extended life Do you have any data for that? Sounds odd.
- rayiner 8y ago
  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-28983924 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-28983924. It’s not odd at all. It’s a basic thing that makes the UK’s health system work. US insurers (in the past) would piss away a half a million or a million on uncertain treatments. (And then the family would go out of pocket, go broke, and there would be an article on medical bankruptcies.) The UK doesn’t do that. Instead, it’s very aggressive about justifying costs with expected outcomes.