Posted on 10/11/2007 2:35:03 AM PDT by tlb
Here is the truth.
They call it the Health care Industry for a reason.
It is an INDUSTRY.
When I go to see the Doctor there are always 2 or 3 Gals whose only job is to deal with the insurance company’s.
The Insurance company’s employ similar persons on their end.
We are paying all these salaries.
If we just paid for services performed we would be way better off.
The Health care industry is getting as bad as the Legal industry. Its all smoke and mirrors and endless bills, and we have to have it!
Used to be you just went to the Doctor and made your own decisions in consultation with him.
Technology is available to do it cheaply
Non smokers would be the ones putting up with the personal privacy infringement. There wouldn't be any reason to test smokers unless it was banned altogether by the employer. SHS does produce Cotinine in non smokers, so it might be possible to detect if your spouse smokes or you hang out at smoke filled bars after work and get whacked with an insurance surcharge.
The law says you have to have "uninsured drivers insurance"? Arkansas requires liability insurance for all drivers, but doesn't require "uninsured motorist). On the other hand - just because insurance is required doesn't mean everyone has it (and it is generally relatively inexpensive). I know someone who was hit by an illegal immigrant who had not insurance (or even the title to the vehicle). The illegal driver who was at fault was allowed to go - and the victim had to pay for her own damages (deductable on her insurance).
The phrase "regardless of your beliefs on the subject" is a general term, not particularly aimed at anyone specific - but as a general tag. Nor was I making any assumption - just adding on to your post.
I'm sorry you took it as some sort of personal attack - it was not meant that way.
was a referal to alot of other high risks, “(regardless of your beliefs on the subject)”
I can imagine that if the insurance companies could figure out a way to verify those activities, they would adjust premiums for those risks too...
Personally, I believe that the idea of low co-pays for medical visits and prescriptions actually drives the overall costs up. This also demonstrates why “universal Hillary care” will never control costs-
Your employer takes money out of your paycheck to pay your share of premiums, correct? Are you saying that your company has no “opt-out”? It is difficult to believe that this would be legal. If that is the actual case - then something is quite wrong with your employer.
On the other hand, your employer is under no obligation to give you the money they pay for your insurance. But I don’t believe they can continue to withhold from your check for your portion of the premiums.
Is that a New Jersey law? Insurance rates vary in my state based on where I live...
And when you are part of an insurance pool (group policy), that is how it works - you all pay to share the costs for all members. That is the positive of private insurance - you can choose the benefits you want (generally).
That's the point of covering large pools of people as it spreads the risk.
This covering by the risk is just plain stupid. Eventually we'll all be walking around in giant body condoms, if we leave the house at all, to make sure we don't have to pay any "surcharges".
Excellent solution.
Until the unions start telling their folks that the company is going to make them buy their own health care. (Forgetting the part that the company will be giving them money to do it with). Heck, the local big firm near my town was going to start having their employees pay a $5 co-pay for doctors visits. (I’m thinking that it was with the idea of if they have to pay at least something they won’t go to the doctor for every little sniffle.) They went on strike. (These are folks making $60k a year!).
They vary here too. But they cannot vary in any way that might harm a protected class. E.g. I'm sure that smokers can be charged more for life insurance, but queers cannot. Similarly car insurance cannot charge by education or too closely by location because then "minorities" would claim they were targeted.
ML/NJ
Which goes back to the point- insurance premiums should be based upon verifiable and provable risks.
If a group voluntarily chooses to give up some to help all in the group obtain insurance - then that is another issue. BUt even within a group - if someone represents a significant increase in risk, then it is only logical that they should pay a higher premium.
This “protected class” nonsense is going to be the end of us yet.
Sorry for the delayed reply. I haven’t had the time to read and reply this past week.
The entire goal is to take in as much money as possible while insuring those who are least likely to file claims. ;-)
If a particular insurer decides to charge a premium for certain behaviors they run the risk of losing customers to insurers who don’t view the risk in the same way. I believe that they should be allowed to rate their risks and charge accordingly, but I also think that it is fair to point out the risks involved when insuring homosexuals, competitive cycle and car racers, sky divers, etc, etc, etc.
I’ve been fired from a lot of jobs for a lot of reasons. My new objective in life is not be the least PC person possible. I can’t get fired anymore, per se but I can lose customers. I’ll take that chance.
Ooops.
That should read:
To be the least PC person possible.
I understand that.
That’s why I said what I said. If you charge for one, then why not charge for the others?
Political correctness is the answer. Other things are far deadlier in the short term than smoking. You can die of a hundred or more other causes before smoking gets to you.
The ACLU will be all over this, right? It’s patently unconstitutional.
Suppose they wanted to say if you own a gun you should pay more because of the injury risk.
Exactly. Get rid of insurance companies. The consumer should pay for what they use as in every other industry. This way, people who sky dive, run with the bulls and engage in high risk behavior pay for their own health care.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.