Skip to main content

View Diary: ACA Premium increases: offloading risk, and the healthy v.s. the sick (46 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So luck = cheaper? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tonedevil
    •  I think you're overstating the role "luck" plays (5+ / 0-)

      in this.  If you look at the 10 leading causes of death in the US, most of them have a significant lifestyle component.  Luck and genetics plays a large role, but so does lifestyle and habits.  

      •  And to the degree that luck does pay ... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Tonedevil

        premiums of the healthy should increase.  

        But I'm not sure if causes of death matter unless it's chronic.  The question is what is costing the most.  Clearly heart disease and diabetes are big ones.  But cancer is a big one that is largely not genetic.  Also loads of these:

        http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/...

        But again, the point is not that everyone would pay the same, the point is that the healthy are paying too little.

        •  should say *'is genetic' (0+ / 0-)
          •  VClib is Derailing This Diary (0+ / 0-)

            Anyone looking for an on-topic discussion of the diary needs to scroll down a ways.  

            This CBS report is journalistic fraud.  The "insurance plan" is a fraud.  Details are later in the thread.  Those contributions to the thread are on-topic and interesting.

            I've been seeing a pattern of some members rushing in with off-topic early posts on threads that debunk very bad MSM reports.  Diarists need to be ready to intervene to defend their diaries.

            Thank you.

            •  maybe just a little (0+ / 0-)

              There were 3 points to this diary:

              1) Ms. Barrette  has been paying for a horrible plan, and comparing that to bona fide insurance is disingenuous.

              2) In purchasing a horrible plan, Ms. Barrette is externalizing some of her risk to other individuals.  The same arguments for why the uninsured need to pay their way apply to Ms. Barrette's under-insurance.

              3) Even if Ms. Barrette's plan was full coverage, and her premiums did increase, a portion of this increase is due to fairness. Those with full coverage plans who are healthy benefit from small-risk pools by excluding a portion of the population who are sick due to no fault of their own.

              VClib seems to be commenting on the 3rd point.  Admittedly, It's more of a philosophical issue that doesn't really tie in with the news cycle, but it's somewhat relevant.  

              The problem, of course, is that VClib is flat out wrong and has been grossly unable to show why the healthy deserve low premiums as compared to those who are sick for reasons beyond their control.  But VClib does have quite a challenge, as it is patently obvious that those sick for reasons beyond their control obviously do not deserve higher premiums, so it's really a steep uphill climb.

              •  Thank You (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                jacksmind

                Thank you for writing a very good diary,

                I agree with everything you mentioned in this post, but one.  I think you are being too charitable with the use of the phrase "philosophical issue".   This flim-flam contract is a one-sided false assurance to unwary consumers which doesn't  have anything to do with risk assessment or distribution of risk.

                I'm glad that public policy in this country is now making a long-overdue advance.  Such contracts can no longer be called "health insurance".

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site