Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: CharlesWayneCT
Why does that have to be the case? If a company with 10,000 workers stopped covering their workers, and their workers all went to sign up directly with the insurance company, why would the economics of the deal change for either of them?

One of the main differences would be the individuals would now be rated based on the risk they represent. An employer provided plan costs the same premium for everyone whether you are a 50 year old obese chain smoker or a 25 year old triathalon winner.

Once those two individuals hit the private market, the cost will go down for one and up for the other.

A big factor for most families is the lack of maternity coverage on most private pay insurance policies. Outside of employer provided coverage, it is nearly impossible to find maternity coverage. So the family is looking at a minimum $8-10k for a pregancy.

145 posted on 10/18/2007 9:06:56 AM PDT by Can i say that here?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies ]


To: Can i say that here?
An employer provided plan costs the same premium for everyone whether you are a 50 year old obese chain smoker or a 25 year old triathalon winner.

I don't know where you live or what kind of plan your employer has, but I don't think this is the case at all.

155 posted on 10/18/2007 9:44:56 AM PDT by Alberta's Child (I'm out on the outskirts of nowhere . . . with ghosts on my trail, chasing me there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies ]

To: Can i say that here?

I had a friend who had all four of their kids at home, he said it cost them about six hundred bucks a kid for maternity checkups and the birth-nurse.

On the other hand, both our kids were c-sections at a hospital, which I figured cost more than the total amount I had paid for health insurance by that point.

Nothing though compared to my son’s 10 days in neonatal icu. That was more expensive than my car.

On the other hand, I didn’t have insurance to buy my car, I just saved up the $25,000 and bought a car. So I guess that if I didn’t have insurance, I would have found a way to save up the $25,000 to pay for my son’s medical treatments.

Difference being that everybody buys a car, not everybody has to have expensive medical treatment. So if I got together with some friends, we could all agree that if any of us needs medical care, we will all pay equally for it.

Hey, that’s insurance.


161 posted on 10/18/2007 9:59:44 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT (ninjas can't attack you if you set yourself on fire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies ]

To: Can i say that here?

I’m not sure I’d agree with the idea of charging different rates for folks in different age groups. You would significantly lower the fees in the group for the young, and destroy the ability of people in the elder high risk groups to obtain insurance. Ultimately that would shrink the pool of the insured and result in the rates for the younger group being impacted negatively anyway.


185 posted on 10/18/2007 2:08:36 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Hillary has pay fever. There she goes now... "Ha Hsu, ha hsu, haaaa hsu, ha hsu...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies ]

To: Can i say that here?
One of the main differences would be the individuals would now be rated based on the risk they represent. An employer provided plan costs the same premium for everyone whether you are a 50 year old obese chain smoker or a 25 year old triathalon winner.
It goes beyond poor life choices. Many diseases are passed on genetically. Not a lot we can do about that. So if Cancer runs in your family don't bet on being able to afford insurance. Especially with coming genetic screening technology.
229 posted on 10/31/2007 1:38:38 PM PDT by 21stCenturyFreeThinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson