4 ms·

>When you think about it, it's a bit silly that employees earning 2 or 3x the salaries of other employees are paying the same for healthcare. You think it cost

>When you think about it, it's a bit silly that employees earning 2 or 3x the salaries of other employees are paying the same for healthcare. You think it costs more to treat someone who makes more money?

cogman10 5y ago
No, I think everyone needs healthcare regardless of income and expenses. However, I think someone making 200,000 is much more capable of paying $1200 monthly than someone earning $30,000 is capable of paying $600 monthly. And, if you are talking about treating people based on what it costs, then why have insurance in the first place? The entire point of insurance is sharing the cost with others.
- maccolgan 5y ago
  >And, if you are talking about treating people based on what it costs, then why have insurance in the first place? The entire point of insurance is sharing the cost with others. It's not about sharing the "cost", it's sharing the risk. Insurance is all about risk profiling and compensating for that. The cost to treat you is dependent upon your medical profile not how much $$$ you are making. If you are less risky *and* make a lot of money you won't get a higher premium than someone much more riskier and who doesn't make a lot of money. > No, I think everyone needs healthcare regardless of income and expenses. However, I think someone making 200,000 is much more capable of paying $1200 monthly than someone earning $30,000 is capable of paying $600 monthly. Okay, but then what? Cross-subsidization is a inherently unfair practice.
  - cogman10 5y ago
    > It's not about sharing the "cost", it's sharing the risk. The "risk" is a high cost event. For insurance to work, there has to be winners and losers. The price the losers pay isn't exactly fair to them, is it? > If you are less risky and make a lot of money you won't get a higher premium than someone much more riskier and who doesn't make a lot of money. Not how it works in the US (particularly with Obamacare regulations) the only risk profiles insurance companies are allowed to consider for health is age and smoking. Prior to Obamacare there were preconditions they could evaluate to offer different insurance premiums. Those are all out the door. > Okay, but then what? Cross-subsidization is a inherently unfair practice. And? I don't understand why it matters to be absolutely "fair" to the wealthy. The wealthy achieved their wealth by means of a great society powering their empires. Why is it a wrong to expect them to pay more to improve the society around them? And, importantly, the US wouldn't be the first nation to do this. Progressive taxation exists in pretty much ever successful country. And, besides the US, all of those countries will have some form of Universal healthcare funded by that taxation.
    - gruez 5y ago
      >For insurance to work, there has to be winners and losers. The price the losers pay isn't exactly fair to them, is it? Right, but there's a difference between you paying your expected value in costs (imperfect as it might be, because of the attributes insurance companies are allowed to consider), compared to you paying 3x the expected value on the basis of your income.

cogman10 5y ago

No, I think everyone needs healthcare regardless of income and expenses. However, I think someone making 200,000 is much more capable of paying $1200 monthly than someone earning $30,000 is capable of paying $600 monthly. And, if you are talking about treating people based on what it costs, then why have insurance in the first place? The entire point of insurance is sharing the cost with others.

maccolgan 5y ago
>And, if you are talking about treating people based on what it costs, then why have insurance in the first place? The entire point of insurance is sharing the cost with others. It's not about sharing the "cost", it's sharing the risk. Insurance is all about risk profiling and compensating for that. The cost to treat you is dependent upon your medical profile not how much $$$ you are making. If you are less risky *and* make a lot of money you won't get a higher premium than someone much more riskier and who doesn't make a lot of money. > No, I think everyone needs healthcare regardless of income and expenses. However, I think someone making 200,000 is much more capable of paying $1200 monthly than someone earning $30,000 is capable of paying $600 monthly. Okay, but then what? Cross-subsidization is a inherently unfair practice.
- cogman10 5y ago
  > It's not about sharing the "cost", it's sharing the risk. The "risk" is a high cost event. For insurance to work, there has to be winners and losers. The price the losers pay isn't exactly fair to them, is it? > If you are less risky and make a lot of money you won't get a higher premium than someone much more riskier and who doesn't make a lot of money. Not how it works in the US (particularly with Obamacare regulations) the only risk profiles insurance companies are allowed to consider for health is age and smoking. Prior to Obamacare there were preconditions they could evaluate to offer different insurance premiums. Those are all out the door. > Okay, but then what? Cross-subsidization is a inherently unfair practice. And? I don't understand why it matters to be absolutely "fair" to the wealthy. The wealthy achieved their wealth by means of a great society powering their empires. Why is it a wrong to expect them to pay more to improve the society around them? And, importantly, the US wouldn't be the first nation to do this. Progressive taxation exists in pretty much ever successful country. And, besides the US, all of those countries will have some form of Universal healthcare funded by that taxation.
  - gruez 5y ago
    >For insurance to work, there has to be winners and losers. The price the losers pay isn't exactly fair to them, is it? Right, but there's a difference between you paying your expected value in costs (imperfect as it might be, because of the attributes insurance companies are allowed to consider), compared to you paying 3x the expected value on the basis of your income.