If you want your insurance to cover you, but not fat, sick or other people, then it's not insurance

[CreekDog]

You have to pick what you want.

But insurance is pooling risk. If you want to eliminate everyone from the pool you're in unless they are just like you, that pool gets pretty small, pretty quick and suddenly it's not so cheap.

Oh, but it's cheap now because you're young, in shape and healthy

--you won't be young forever, and hard as you try to be fit, you may not be fit forever.

If you want to exclude other people from your insurance pool to make yours cheaper, I would fully plan on them returning the favor when you're older and refusing to cover whatever befalls your health.

Good luck. It goes both ways.

[Arugula Latte]

1. Also, even if you're young and healthy, you could have an accident.

A major accident. A life-changing accident. Tomorrow.

[CreekDog]

3. some people, luckily only a minority here, want the benefits of insurance

but want to be covered by others and have others share their risk.

yet don't want to share in others' risk.

me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me

[Change has come]

30. Our own little conservatives.

[NYC_SKP]

2. You are correct, CreekDog. nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

4. Younger drivers pay more than older drivers,

smokers pay more for life insurance, people with potentially vicious dogs pay more for homeowners insurance. Ergo your premise is false.

[CreekDog]

5. so what level of discount do you want for being in shape?

tell us what percentage discount off the going rate do you want?

or what surcharge level are you asking the non-fit or obese to pay over the going rate?

or do you not want them covered at all?

just tell us what you want.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

6. I live in the country. As part of that Lover Boy and I have a dog.

The breed we chose is deemed potentially vicious. As such we are charged more for our HOI. However, we were still free to shop for the best price among competing policy issuers.

Insurance has always been able to account for personal choices and demographics. I am not required to name a percentage in order to cite the very obvious examples that demonstrate how your OP is based on a false premise.

[geek tragedy]

18. "Insurance has always been able to account for personal choices and demographics."

So, you're endorsing discrimination and pre-existing condition exclusions.

You must LOVE the old system.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

22. A child born with leukemia is nothing like

a life long smoker succumbing to lung disease caused by their own poor choices. I'm speaking of the latter. Try being honest enough to accept I never made such a statement as you describe.

The OP made a demonstrably false statement. No one demands drunk drivers receive the same discounts on car insurance that safe drivers do. No one demands rural homeowners pay the same HOI rates as urban homeowners. Life goes on.

[Ed Suspicious]

77. Oh, your making a values judgment. The more despicable the behavior the more they should pay.

So the leukemia patient should be cheap. The obese person should be expensive. What about the person who tears an ACL while running? Runners are always injured it seems. My daughter has a case of runners knee. I had a costly mri to uncover a torn meniscus caused by working out while obese. Oh shit that's a conundrum. Are we who exercise putting ourselves despicably in harms way and engaging in more costly behavior? What about women who become pregnant. I guess you just want to pool to yourself. I would argue that horseback riding is risky behavior and people on high one's are especially in danger of raising our premiums with their despicable behavior.

[kcr]

7. How is that?

It seems to me you prove the point. The less the risk is pooled, the more uneven everyone is charged.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

9. Prove the point? I admit the point.

I see no reason why non-smokers should subsidize the medical care of smokers who deliberately chose to engage in unhealthy behaviors. We should incentivize good behaviors that lessen the burden on the system not subsidizing self-destruction.

[kcr]

11. You have a funny way of admitting points.

I would agree with you, except I see a reason to 'subsidize' the medical care of smokers and other people who choose unhealthy behaviors. It's the same reason many others do. It's the same reason most other civilized nations have moved to single payer health care systems. Living in a nation where we choose to just let people die because we don't want to 'subsidize' them would be a suckey place. That's a good enough reason.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

12. Should people with DUI accidents pay the same as life long safe drivers?

Living in a nation where we choose to just let people die because we don't want to 'subsidize' them would be a suckey place. That's a good enough reason.

That's not a reason, that's a moral dictate.

[kcr]

17. Oh, no! Not moral dictates!

What was I thinking? We're the USA. Land of cold, hard reason. Hoooorah! Thanks for reminding me. I'll be sure to buy mortuary stock while I'm still thinking clearly. Obviously, we can't have single payer. Because DUI drivers.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

20. You started by saying you had a reason. Obviously you now concede you never did.

And something tells me you won't be cheerfully embracing moral dictators when the RWers start imposing their ideals.

The OP was based on a demonstrably false premise. Now you want to retreat into some subjective fiction of how we have some moral obligation lest we be deemed morally unfit. Tie that back into the OP and you might as well say the infidels shall be excommunicated from the Holy Church of the Divine Insurance Pool.

[kcr]

21. Oh, I had a reason. But you incredibly dismissed it as a moral dictate

And then I looked up and made sure I was at DU... Seriously. You don't believe society has any moral obligations whatsoever? *I type knowing I'm thoroughly wasting my time*

[Nuclear Unicorn]

24. "You don't believe society has any moral obligations whatsoever?"

Jeez, you guys can't carry on an honest conversation. Every retort seems based on wild distortions.

I can totally see removing artificial impediments to receiving healthcare as a moral obligation. I don't see forcing non-smokers to pay for the bad choices of their smoking counterparts as a moral imperative. In fact, I would argue I someone insists on deliberately becoming a bigger burden on society they have a moral obligation to stop doing stupid things or at least accept the consequences for their ill considered behavior.

I admit it, I'm weird like that.

[kcr]

26. I don't know. It seems to me you bring those on yourself

when you respond to my reason that I don't want to just leave people to die because of their poor choices and call it a "moral dictate" Gee, I guess I"m just "weird like that"

[Nuclear Unicorn]

28. If you conflate people bearing the consequences for their own willful actions

with an absolute rejection of all moral ideals it is you that have the problem, not me. And seeing at it is a favored tactic of those lacking in substantive rebuttals it is, again, your issue, not mine.

And you make it appear as though your problem with moral dictates is general, with your crack about me not being so giddy about RW moral dictates.

Yet, I don't think I'm far off the mark. Correct me if I'm wrong but when the RWers attempt to legislate morality there is a tremendous amount of unease and resistance for the very reason they are attempting to legislate morality. Whether or not their policy prescriptions are even practical isn't the issue, it's the legislating of morality itself; as if we can somehow be commanded into being better souls by force of law. Forgive me but I numbered you as being amongst those who would resist such absurd legalisms. It would be foolish to then leap to suggest Progressives -- even you -- reject all morality as a whole.

[kcr]

29. Yes, you are off the mark

And you are doing it again. So, we can't take whether something is moral into account, because it would be bad when right wingers do it? Hogwash. Either it's the right thing to do or it isn't. I'm conflating? You are the one who brought up moral dictates as an objection in the first place. But I'll note you're okay with them sometimes, and not all the time, and that you don't have an absolute rejection of all morals. I note upthread that babies with cancer? Save. Smokers? Fuck 'em.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

51. "Either it's the right thing to do or it isn't."

Okay.

It isn't. I see neither reason nor moral precept to explain why we must charge people more money to cover smokers and other people with self-destructive habits for the things they have done to themselves.

Smokers? Fuck 'em.

We don't have to, they did it to themselves -- being fully aware of the consequences as they were doing it. That's the point.

[christx30]

38. The question is that...

If society has a moral obligation to take care of people despite their personal choices, do individuals have a moral obligation to society to make good choices? If everyone has to pay for your lung cancer because you decide to smoke 5 packs a day for 30 years, would that put upon you to stop doing it? And if you do have that obligation, does society have the right to enforce that obligation through laws or fines?

[kcr]

40. That's only the question

For those who want to to take into consideration things like personal choices when deeming who is deserving of care. Seems simpler and easier to from an ethical standpoint just take care of everyone, doesn't it? People like smokers are the easy whipping boys of personal choice, but what about the grayer areas? Who actually leads a pure life free of all risk?

[christx30]

45. I think if someone is paying

your bills, it does put you into an obligation to them. Smoking is easy because it is a choice. Everyone knows it is a deadly, disgusting stupid habit. The treatment for the illnesses it causes are very expensive. You can choose to not start. You can choose to quit. If you decide to smoke, you should be responsible for the consequences. If someone else is going to be responsible for your poor decision making, then you should have to mitigate the costs. "I'm 28 years old. I know smoking will give me cancer. I know we've been told for 40 years that it'll kill me. But I choose to do it anyway. And you, dear sucker, are going to pay for it. You have an obligation toward me. I don't have to do shit for you."

[kcr]

46. Well, you're free to think anything you want to

You're free to disregard what thinking those things cost society. You're free to disregard what holding people to those obligations costs the rest of us. Of course, we're free to disregard those opinions and forge ahead with doing what is right for society. The rest of us realize that spreading the risks and taking care of everyone actually benefits society.

[christx30]

47. But it's not spreading

the risks. It's taking people that are irresponsible and making bad choices and putting them on people that do the right thing. If you're a smoker, you should have to pay substantially more as a consequence of you doing something society has warned you repeatedly is stupid. You do not have the right to cost society more. Call it a smoking tax. Call it a fine. Call it a higher premium. But the cost of smoking should be a hell of a lot more than the cost of your cigs. It should punish smokers for their stupidity, and make smoking undesirable from not only a cost perspective, but you should be seen as a selfish asshole for doing it. Like burning other people's money.

[kcr]

48. But it won't be just smokers

Smoking isn't the only bad choice one can make is it? So then where do you draw the line? Meat eating tax? Not exercising three times a week tax? Speeding tax? Skiing tax? Bicycling tax? Having kids without getting genetically tested tax? Having kids when you gentetically tested positive for diseases anyway tax? Having the gall to exist when you tested positive for genetic diseases tax? Where do you draw the line?

[HockeyMom]

55. Pregnancy

Where I worked, they self-insured. Pregnancy was considered lifestyle choice. After all pregnancy carries risks and can increase costs. I had a ruptured ectopic pregnancy. If I had never gotten pregnant in the first place, I would not have had to had that surgery, etc. Lifestyle choice.

That is why they try to charge women more.

[A Simple Game]

37. I see your point but where would you draw the line? You do know that

white collar workers live longer than blue collar workers, should blue collar workers pay more?

Would you then support DNA testing for predisposition to disease? Downhill skiers should pay more? Sky divers?

If not pure non-discriminatory insurance then where is your line? You opened it, how many worms would you like to pull out of the can?

And stop with the car insurance BS, it's not even in the same realm and you know it. People can live without car insurance and even without a car, they did it for centuries, everyone gets sick no matter how well they care for themselves. Maybe you should pay more because you are more likely to get lyme disease by living in a rural area.

[eridani]

50. They absolutely should not only be forced to subsidize smokers, but smokers should get a discount

--because it is the smokers who are subsidizing the non-smokers

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

Preventing obesity and smoking can save lives, but it does not save money, according to a new report.

It costs more to care for healthy people who live years longer, according to a Dutch study that counters the common perception that preventing obesity would save governments millions of dollars.

"It was a small surprise," said Pieter van Baal, an economist at the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment in the Netherlands, who led the study. "But it also makes sense. If you live longer, then you cost the health system more."

In a paper published online Monday in the Public Library of Science Medicine journal, Dutch researchers found that the health costs of thin and healthy people in adulthood are more expensive than those of either fat people or smokers.

[FarCenter]

14. A teenage driver who drove drunk after midnight on a two-lane rural highway is now a paraplegic

He was in a different risk pool that I am.

A lot of health care cost is due to choice, not risk. For example, a young woman had a baby with a serious birth defect instead of having an abortion. The taxpayers of her state are now paying a lot of Medicaid costs in an attempt to correct the defects and keep the baby from being a life-long cripple.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

16. I'm sorry I honestly don't understand your point. Could you please elaborate.

[Dorian Gray]

23. Are you saying

that it's not fair that taxpayers are paying to correct those defects?

[CreekDog]

35. look here and see what he said about slavery...

i'm not sure there really is any reason to expect that he's saying anything good.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1123907

[Skip Intro]

83. That shit right there. That fucking bullshit.

Digging up supposed dirt on a poster (no dirt there) who presents an opinion you differ with rather than engaging the poster on the point he/she raised and/or the topic of discussion. Trying to smear the poster, attacking that person's character, trying to diminish the person because you don't like his/her opinion, spouting personal attacks in place of actual, honest discussion.

That kind of cowardly and slimy shit taints you and every word you say.

It's a bullshit gutter game and you're the only one who wants to play

And everybody else can see it clear as day.

[CreekDog]

85. They aren't ashamed of those words, why would posting their opinion embarass them?

People who say things like that and attack the president and Democrats from the right don't get to tell me what the rules are.

[CreekDog]

31. Right, so the teenage driver injured that way will just have to draw from their millions in savings

so right that you are far from center you are.

[CreekDog]

33. Here's what you said about slavery...why should anyone here listen to you on anything else?

FarCenter (15,582 posts)
4. Prior to the Civil War, it was the North that was attempting to impose its values on the South

Slavery had been legal, if not very common, in many of the northern states in the early 1800s.

The attitudes towards slavery changed first in the northern states because of the abolitionist movement. Then the northern states attempted to prevent the establishment of slavery in the new states in the west, even when those states were populated by settlers from the south.

So the imposition of values came from the north. The values in the south had not changed much at all.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1123907

[demigoddess]

32. But what would we charge someone who will get cancer in two years

for all we know it will be a very rare, expensive cancer. Or a freak accident that will have him a quadriplegic for the rest of his life. Or we could just do death panels. Low insurance cost, but you better not have an accident.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

53. Getting cancer is 2 years is not the same as a lifelong smoker contracting emphysema

[Ed Suspicious]

78. Addiction is illness.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

79. It's self-imposed.

[jtuck004]

34. It's not that easy. Younger drivers pay more because they are a known risk. They WILL have accidents

in a greater proportion. But ALL of them, general, except for some discounts for grades and other bs (which often don't amount to much) they all pay the same as their peers. And 30-60 year old drivers pay about what other 40-60 year old drivers do.

And, generally, 40 -50 years olds pay about the same as their class. The cigarette smoking is a relatively new thing, and is more of a profit generator than coverage for extra costs. A geriatric patient can cost far more than a cancer treatment, yet that group/class of people all pay about the same rate.

The dog thing is another case in point. Your breed is termed potentially vicious, but is it a golden retriever? They bite more than any dog in survey after survey, yet terrier mixes, (often wrongly called pit bull by people with a lack of training in identification) are just about the same as ANY big dog mistreated and left uncared for. But it's extra money, so why not?

In other words, the class the actuaries look at is not the universe of possibilities, but a subset.

Some companies try to carve out a niche of less risk and market it as such, but have much of a claim or two and the insured is likely to find out that having to get a new company will cost them more on average than it would have had they not gone for the "deal" in the first place.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

52. None of which disproves my point that the OP is based on a false premise.

[jtuck004]

59. The OP said insurance is based on pooling risk - which is true. But whatever you think. n/t

[pnwmom]

69. And older people will pay 3x more for health insurance. So what's your point?

[Hippo_Tron]

73. Health care is a basic human right... life insurance and vicious dogs are not

The healthy subsidize the less healthy because that's what people in a decent compassionate society do. You can survive without life insurance and without owning a vicious dog. You can't survive without cancer treatment if you have cancer.

Car insurance, I'll admit, exists in that realm somewhere between needs and wants because some people really need to be able to drive and others don't.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

75. A decent compassionate society doesn't penalize people

for doing the right thing while subsidizing those who do the wrong thing.

[Hippo_Tron]

76. Yes it does

A decent compassionate society provides food, clothing, shelter, and medical care to all of its citizens regardless of how many bad decisions they've made, end of story.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

80. No, that's you imposing a baseless, subjective morality on others.

[Hippo_Tron]

81. A subjective baseless morality that EVERY OTHER WESTERN INDUSTRIALZIED NATION ON THE PLANET lives by

Nowhere in Canada or Western Europe do they tell you "oh you smoked and now have lung cancer, too bad we're going to let you die". But they sure have no problem just letting people die in places like China. So yea, morality is subjective and all that. My personal opinion is that we ought to go in the moral direction of Canada and Western Europe and not in the moral direction of China. But if you think we ought to aspire to make our healthcare system more like China's, then I totally understand.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

84. "too bad we're going to let you die"

1. Their systems aren't insurance based like the ACA

2. argumentum ad populum

3. You're deliberately misrepresenting what I said

4. You still haven't provided any proof beyond your own personal demands

[oldhippie]

8. The original idea of insurance was to share risk .....

.... , and thus costs, with persons with a risk similar to yours. It was originally shipping companies and ship captains that knew they would occasionally lose a ship and cargo. The important thing is that the members of the risk pool self-selected on the basis of having similar risk profiles.

Now the common perception of insurance is that it is a cost sharing device for everyone in a society. Everyone shares the costs regardless of the different risks. Some people think this is more "fair" but it distorts the original intent of insurance.

[kcr]

10. Well, heaven forbid we distort the original intent of anything.

Nothing should ever change.

[geek tragedy]

19. Why it's that old liberal redistribution of wealth thing. nt

[JaneyVee]

13. The entire insurance industry would collapse.

[Incitatus]

25. If only. nt

[reformist2]

15. We ought to be fighting the drug/medical device companies to force down their prices!!

[burnsei sensei]

42. Yes. Health care accessibility is directly related to cost containment.

nt

[Yo_Mama]

27. Yeah, because the point of having insurance is so you can get treatment when you're sick

There is nothing more perverse about the pre-ACA system than the fact that people could pay into insurance all their well, working years, then get sick and be unable to work, and then find themselves unable to pay for their insurance because they were sick, and then find themselves without treatment. Nobody was REALLY insured. They may have thought they were, but they weren't until they got Medicare.

It's really almost a crime that the administration is not arguing the real case for ACA, which is that under this theoretical system, if you get ill and have a loss of income, the premium subsidies are supposed to pick up so that you can still be insured. That's the benefit of ACA as it was designed, and it is a huge, huge benefit.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

36. It's the selfishness of "Why should I pay for your health care?"

[hatrack]

66. See also: "Why should I pay for your library?", "Why should I pay for your roads?", etc.

nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

67. Then there's: "Why should I pay for your Wargasm?"

[Rex]

39. You cannot go cheap on the heart and head.

You want partial coverage, better say which parts first. I'll take full coverage thank you. I don't care if that 13 cents goes to covering someone else, I know it is recirculated through the system. People buy umbrella insurance to cover anything that can happen to them, seems strange to get picky when it comes to health...any ones health imo.

Then again I believe in sharing the burden and that makes a difference when compared to people that don't give a crap about others well being.

[CreekDog]

43. I agree with everything you said

[Rex]

44. I am glad you said it and made this into a thread!

[burnsei sensei]

41. I'm glad someone has brought this up.

The whole point of insurance is the creation of a pool of resources from which members can draw when they are in need. If you think that the pool should consist only of you and people like you, then you are not being public-spirited. Insurance works best as a principle when the pool is diverse, the resources great, and thus the potential security great.
Insurance works on the principle of charity.
And if you don't have charity, as some people I heard in the media complaining this past two weeks, then insurance won't fly in this country, private or public.

[KG]

49. insurance companies are, ironically, totally against taking risks.

insurance cos don't give a shit about health care or taking risks, they are about making money and want thier profits assured.

hence the ACA.

[HockeyMom]

56. +1000

It's all about profits.

[DrDan]

57. they are a business - why is this a surprise?

of course they are about profits

[DrDan]

54. "then it is not insurance" - what does that even mean?

Folks are excluded from auto insurance all the time (DUI, too many accidents) - it remains insurance for everyone else.

The reason for exclusion is exactly as you state - to contain claim costs.

[OwnedByCats]

58. I got a shock from my car insurance company a few months back

They raised our rate, despite having never made a claim, despite not having received any traffic violation tickets. I'm 40 and my husband is 34, we both have clean driving records. So he calls them and they say it went up because of other people in the area making claims. Huh? When I was in my twenties, my insurance would gradually decrease in cost for being a safe driver, now they try to charge us for other people's claims. I had just never heard of that before in regard to car ins. After they applied some discounts, our insurance was lowered but wow, seems to me like they were trying to pull the wool over our eyes on that one.

[Romulox]

60. The weight of the US government shouldn't be brought to bear in service of private profit.

Ever. You argue for insurance for all? Private insurance means that nobody gets care until the private corporations skim 20% off the top.

It's disgusting to pretend like this arrangement is charity. It isn't charity to Aetna and its shareholders. It's record stock prices, for them.

[CreekDog]

61. I'm not pretending it's charity, but this is broad based regulation of a market that hasn't had that

certainly not on this scale.

yes, I'd prefer single payer, but while people are getting their insurance through the private market, we need to help them pay for it and make sure there are market reforms that give them some protections.

[Romulox]

62. It is causing prices to explode, while not covering everybody. And we *already* paid more than

anyone else in the world.

We can't afford to pay for everyone with this system, which is why it doesn't even attempt to. Instead of providing care for the sick, it provides them with credits with which they can transfer to private insurers--and 20 cents out of every dollar is devoted to private profit.

[CreekDog]

63. it's not causing prices to explode, the market reforms have actually slowed the cost increases

where have you been? prior to this the insurance prices were increasing astronomically.

where have you been?

[CreekDog]

65. Rise in health care spending lowest on record

Rise in health care spending lowest on record

Kelly Kennedy, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Health care spending since the 2010 passage of the Affordable Care Act has risen by 1.3% a year, the lowest rate ever recorded, and health care inflation is the lowest it has been in 50 years, a report released Wednesday by the White House shows.

An economy hobbled by the recession and 2008 economic crisis played a role in some of the reduced spending growth, officials said, but the report cited "structural change" caused, in part, by the law.

The report's release comes as President Obama and his administration struggle with the political fallout associated with the problem-filled opening of the federal health care exchange, the online marketplace where uninsured Americans can shop for and buy insurance. The exchange's website, HealthCare.gov, opened Oct. 1 and has been hampered by outages and delays, particularly in its first weeks of operation.

Per capita spending has grown at a rate of 1.3% since 2010, the lowest recorded rate for any three-year period on record, according to the report, which was conducted by the White House Council of Economic Advisers.

more
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2013/11/20/health-care-spending-growth/3650243/

[Romulox]

68. That is the period of the Great Recession. People were (and are) broke, leading to lower spending.

You're celebrating people going without care ("spending&quot .

[CreekDog]

70. You just said it was causing prices to explode, now you're saying it didn't cause prices to explode

please keep track of what you're arguing. not really convincing when you put forth an argument then contradict it moments later.

[Romulox]

71. Spending and costs aren't the same thing. Just like insurance and care are different.

Spending can go down as costs go up. That means more people go without. At any rate, the true cost explosion is for insurance coverage in 2013.

[CreekDog]

74. 2013 is over. Nobody's buying insurance for 2013 right now.

what are you talking about?

you are so confused that you don't even realize you keep contradicting yourself.

[Orrex]

64. Some young asshat was blurbed on NPR about that

He said that if he has to pay more because other people are old or sick, then it's not insurance; it's a hidden tax.

Of course, since NPR is such a reliably liberal network, nobody bothered to address his obvious misunderstanding. Better to run another story about how the website is destroying the Democratic party.

[Romulox]

72. He's right. It is a tax, but one paid to a private, for profit corporation.

We wouldn't be forcing people if it were a good deal.

[Skip Intro]

82. Thanks for clearing all that up, CD.

[CreekDog]

86. I realize all this is a joke to you, like the government shutdown was too

remember the mission of this place and stop undermining it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023756389