OT: Anyone hear the NPR interview about the person getting dependant care coverage from parents

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=briansd1]
I always felt that married employees with kids were getting unfair benefits. They are getting benefits that cost more than for single employees. Employees with multiple kids are getting more benefits.

I think that employer health care contribution should be the same amount for single or married employees. Anything over and above an amount should be picked up by the employee.

[/quote]

Great idea. When you start a company you should make this your policy.

[Coronita]

[quote=TenaciousSD][quote=desmond]I just went through this with my son. He graduated from college in May and as I said in a previous topic has a job which does pay his health insurance. So we dropped him from our coverage, and to my shock, their was no difference in our price. A friend of mines son also just graduated, his son has a job that does not pay his insurance, my friend is able to keep his son on his policy but only through COBRA and that is very expensive. I think the only was to stay on the policy is if you are a full or part time student and under 25 or 26. I think instead of blaming the kids as the entitled ones, I think of it as the parents protecting themselves from a large medical bill if the kid has no insurance. Because if they don’t have insurance and the kid has no money, who do you think will pay?[/quote]

100% agree with this – I’d much rather pay ~$200+ per month for my kid to be covered. Although, don’t get me started on kids who are uninsured and pay that much for HD Cable + unlimited text / data cell phone plans![/quote]

I get it if you are self-insured and you pay your own premiums in full. But what if you’re only footing 25% off the bill and the company is footing the remaining 75%? Doesn’t everyone else end up eating the extra premium cost, or doesn’t the employer get creative and just end up cutting employees to cut the cost?

Why can’t a parent just pay 100% of the kid his/her own insurance (assuming there’s no pre-existing condition) instead of the company he/she works for paying say 75% of the bill and possibly shoving that down to everyone else, even when the kid is already at working (albeit on a temporary basis)? Is it really that much more expensive for a parent to buy a healthy kid his/her own insurance, when supposedly he/she is already suppose to be independent?

[Coronita]

[quote=TenaciousSD][quote=desmond]I just went through this with my son. He graduated from college in May and as I said in a previous topic has a job which does pay his health insurance. So we dropped him from our coverage, and to my shock, their was no difference in our price. A friend of mines son also just graduated, his son has a job that does not pay his insurance, my friend is able to keep his son on his policy but only through COBRA and that is very expensive. I think the only was to stay on the policy is if you are a full or part time student and under 25 or 26. I think instead of blaming the kids as the entitled ones, I think of it as the parents protecting themselves from a large medical bill if the kid has no insurance. Because if they don’t have insurance and the kid has no money, who do you think will pay?[/quote]

100% agree with this – I’d much rather pay ~$200+ per month for my kid to be covered. Although, don’t get me started on kids who are uninsured and pay that much for HD Cable + unlimited text / data cell phone plans![/quote]

I get it if you are self-insured and you pay your own premiums in full. But what if you’re only footing 25% off the bill and the company is footing the remaining 75%? Doesn’t everyone else end up eating the extra premium cost, or doesn’t the employer get creative and just end up cutting employees to cut the cost?

Why can’t a parent just pay 100% of the kid his/her own insurance (assuming there’s no pre-existing condition) instead of the company he/she works for paying say 75% of the bill and possibly shoving that down to everyone else, even when the kid is already at working (albeit on a temporary basis)? Is it really that much more expensive for a parent to buy a healthy kid his/her own insurance, when supposedly he/she is already suppose to be independent?

[Coronita]

[quote=TenaciousSD][quote=desmond]I just went through this with my son. He graduated from college in May and as I said in a previous topic has a job which does pay his health insurance. So we dropped him from our coverage, and to my shock, their was no difference in our price. A friend of mines son also just graduated, his son has a job that does not pay his insurance, my friend is able to keep his son on his policy but only through COBRA and that is very expensive. I think the only was to stay on the policy is if you are a full or part time student and under 25 or 26. I think instead of blaming the kids as the entitled ones, I think of it as the parents protecting themselves from a large medical bill if the kid has no insurance. Because if they don’t have insurance and the kid has no money, who do you think will pay?[/quote]

100% agree with this – I’d much rather pay ~$200+ per month for my kid to be covered. Although, don’t get me started on kids who are uninsured and pay that much for HD Cable + unlimited text / data cell phone plans![/quote]

I get it if you are self-insured and you pay your own premiums in full. But what if you’re only footing 25% off the bill and the company is footing the remaining 75%? Doesn’t everyone else end up eating the extra premium cost, or doesn’t the employer get creative and just end up cutting employees to cut the cost?

Why can’t a parent just pay 100% of the kid his/her own insurance (assuming there’s no pre-existing condition) instead of the company he/she works for paying say 75% of the bill and possibly shoving that down to everyone else, even when the kid is already at working (albeit on a temporary basis)? Is it really that much more expensive for a parent to buy a healthy kid his/her own insurance, when supposedly he/she is already suppose to be independent?

[Coronita]

[quote=TenaciousSD][quote=desmond]I just went through this with my son. He graduated from college in May and as I said in a previous topic has a job which does pay his health insurance. So we dropped him from our coverage, and to my shock, their was no difference in our price. A friend of mines son also just graduated, his son has a job that does not pay his insurance, my friend is able to keep his son on his policy but only through COBRA and that is very expensive. I think the only was to stay on the policy is if you are a full or part time student and under 25 or 26. I think instead of blaming the kids as the entitled ones, I think of it as the parents protecting themselves from a large medical bill if the kid has no insurance. Because if they don’t have insurance and the kid has no money, who do you think will pay?[/quote]

100% agree with this – I’d much rather pay ~$200+ per month for my kid to be covered. Although, don’t get me started on kids who are uninsured and pay that much for HD Cable + unlimited text / data cell phone plans![/quote]

I get it if you are self-insured and you pay your own premiums in full. But what if you’re only footing 25% off the bill and the company is footing the remaining 75%? Doesn’t everyone else end up eating the extra premium cost, or doesn’t the employer get creative and just end up cutting employees to cut the cost?

Why can’t a parent just pay 100% of the kid his/her own insurance (assuming there’s no pre-existing condition) instead of the company he/she works for paying say 75% of the bill and possibly shoving that down to everyone else, even when the kid is already at working (albeit on a temporary basis)? Is it really that much more expensive for a parent to buy a healthy kid his/her own insurance, when supposedly he/she is already suppose to be independent?

[Coronita]

[quote=TenaciousSD][quote=desmond]I just went through this with my son. He graduated from college in May and as I said in a previous topic has a job which does pay his health insurance. So we dropped him from our coverage, and to my shock, their was no difference in our price. A friend of mines son also just graduated, his son has a job that does not pay his insurance, my friend is able to keep his son on his policy but only through COBRA and that is very expensive. I think the only was to stay on the policy is if you are a full or part time student and under 25 or 26. I think instead of blaming the kids as the entitled ones, I think of it as the parents protecting themselves from a large medical bill if the kid has no insurance. Because if they don’t have insurance and the kid has no money, who do you think will pay?[/quote]

100% agree with this – I’d much rather pay ~$200+ per month for my kid to be covered. Although, don’t get me started on kids who are uninsured and pay that much for HD Cable + unlimited text / data cell phone plans![/quote]

I get it if you are self-insured and you pay your own premiums in full. But what if you’re only footing 25% off the bill and the company is footing the remaining 75%? Doesn’t everyone else end up eating the extra premium cost, or doesn’t the employer get creative and just end up cutting employees to cut the cost?

Why can’t a parent just pay 100% of the kid his/her own insurance (assuming there’s no pre-existing condition) instead of the company he/she works for paying say 75% of the bill and possibly shoving that down to everyone else, even when the kid is already at working (albeit on a temporary basis)? Is it really that much more expensive for a parent to buy a healthy kid his/her own insurance, when supposedly he/she is already suppose to be independent?

[bearishgurl]

[quote=ocrenter]I listened to the same interview today in whole and I didn’t get anything negative out of it.

the freelance thing is really just a way to say “involuntary temperary part time jobs.” as for 2-3 jobs. that simply means most employers out there are trying their best to game the system by making sure their employees stay “part-time” and therefore they are not on the hook for benefits. think of it this way, I would rather hire two part timers each at 20 hours a week instead of a full time worker working 40 hours.

as for getting on her parent’s insurance. I think otherwise in the great majority of cases, the young adult would have simply gone without insurance. something catestrophic comes along and it’ll be on our dime.[/quote]

I agree, ocrenter. Not ONLY is it difficult for the young 20-something college grad to land a job with benefits, SOMEONE is paying the premiums for them to have coverage until age 26, if necessary. It could be a parent (out of their payroll deduction), along with their parent’s employer. But they’re not getting “free” coverage. SOMEONE is paying the premium and is is NOT the taxpayers. As I recall, this was part of the health care reform bill that was passed in March of this year. It’s would be logical to believe that the mix of these young people on a plan can only HELP rates for the many millions of adults in other age groups.

Back in my day, when we couldn’t get benefits at this age, we just went without and/or used community clinics. Obviously, today’s young people might try to (and successfully) qualify for Medi-Cal if a medical emergency happened to them and they were without coverage. But this coverage WOULD be on the taxpayer’s dime.

What angers me the most about the recent healthcare “reform” bill is that thousands of folks in my demographic (i.e. “baby-boomers”) cannot now be denied an individual policy. It’s NOT that they CAN’T BE DENIED that bothers me . . . it’s that ALL insurance companies recently received permission to raise ALL INDIVIDUAL PREMIUMS on 10/1/10 to help absorb these losses (just as I predicted earlier in the year). I have an individual health policy that I was “put thru the paces” a few years ago to obtain, namely, I had to have these things done and then wait another 60-90 days for “underwriting review:”

EKG
Height/weight
full length color photos – all views
several blood tests
blood pressure
treadmill stress test
physical exam
open up my entire medical record

All done by the insurance co’s contract nurse. I was recently notified that my premium is going up $38 month on October 1, 2010, and, after having “taken care of myself” over the years, I have been nothing but a “profit center” for them. IMHO, this is only the beginning of many more increases to come.

Why?? Let’s look at how some of my previously-uninsurable “peers” have taken (or not) taken care of themselves over the last 40 years, excepting those that suffer or have suffered from birth defects, injuries from accidents or non-alchohol/tobacco-related or inherited cancers:

-alcoholism, which led to cirrhosis;

-obesity, which led to diabetes, heart disease, collapsed, necrotic veins and poor circulation;

-former crystal meth usage, which led to strokes, partial blindness and rotted teeth and gums (which led to heart disease);

-former crack cocaine usage which led to strokes;

-former heroin and LSD use which led to flashbacks, schizophrenia and even lupus;

-former and current smoking, which led/leads to heart disease, lung cancer and COPD;

-and, former and current use of chewing tobacco, which led/leads to mouth cancer and ulcers.

My large medical insurance carrier is on the east coast and my premium is based on two things (1) health care costs in my service area; and (2) typical health care usage of my demographic.

I am now lumped into the mix with the 300-lb, 40 year chain-smoker living in Kentucky that they formerly freely rejected.

All I can say is, I hope Medicare is still around when I need it :={

[bearishgurl]

[quote=ocrenter]I listened to the same interview today in whole and I didn’t get anything negative out of it.

the freelance thing is really just a way to say “involuntary temperary part time jobs.” as for 2-3 jobs. that simply means most employers out there are trying their best to game the system by making sure their employees stay “part-time” and therefore they are not on the hook for benefits. think of it this way, I would rather hire two part timers each at 20 hours a week instead of a full time worker working 40 hours.

as for getting on her parent’s insurance. I think otherwise in the great majority of cases, the young adult would have simply gone without insurance. something catestrophic comes along and it’ll be on our dime.[/quote]

I agree, ocrenter. Not ONLY is it difficult for the young 20-something college grad to land a job with benefits, SOMEONE is paying the premiums for them to have coverage until age 26, if necessary. It could be a parent (out of their payroll deduction), along with their parent’s employer. But they’re not getting “free” coverage. SOMEONE is paying the premium and is is NOT the taxpayers. As I recall, this was part of the health care reform bill that was passed in March of this year. It’s would be logical to believe that the mix of these young people on a plan can only HELP rates for the many millions of adults in other age groups.

Back in my day, when we couldn’t get benefits at this age, we just went without and/or used community clinics. Obviously, today’s young people might try to (and successfully) qualify for Medi-Cal if a medical emergency happened to them and they were without coverage. But this coverage WOULD be on the taxpayer’s dime.

What angers me the most about the recent healthcare “reform” bill is that thousands of folks in my demographic (i.e. “baby-boomers”) cannot now be denied an individual policy. It’s NOT that they CAN’T BE DENIED that bothers me . . . it’s that ALL insurance companies recently received permission to raise ALL INDIVIDUAL PREMIUMS on 10/1/10 to help absorb these losses (just as I predicted earlier in the year). I have an individual health policy that I was “put thru the paces” a few years ago to obtain, namely, I had to have these things done and then wait another 60-90 days for “underwriting review:”

EKG
Height/weight
full length color photos – all views
several blood tests
blood pressure
treadmill stress test
physical exam
open up my entire medical record

All done by the insurance co’s contract nurse. I was recently notified that my premium is going up $38 month on October 1, 2010, and, after having “taken care of myself” over the years, I have been nothing but a “profit center” for them. IMHO, this is only the beginning of many more increases to come.

Why?? Let’s look at how some of my previously-uninsurable “peers” have taken (or not) taken care of themselves over the last 40 years, excepting those that suffer or have suffered from birth defects, injuries from accidents or non-alchohol/tobacco-related or inherited cancers:

-alcoholism, which led to cirrhosis;

-obesity, which led to diabetes, heart disease, collapsed, necrotic veins and poor circulation;

-former crystal meth usage, which led to strokes, partial blindness and rotted teeth and gums (which led to heart disease);

-former crack cocaine usage which led to strokes;

-former heroin and LSD use which led to flashbacks, schizophrenia and even lupus;

-former and current smoking, which led/leads to heart disease, lung cancer and COPD;

-and, former and current use of chewing tobacco, which led/leads to mouth cancer and ulcers.

My large medical insurance carrier is on the east coast and my premium is based on two things (1) health care costs in my service area; and (2) typical health care usage of my demographic.

I am now lumped into the mix with the 300-lb, 40 year chain-smoker living in Kentucky that they formerly freely rejected.

All I can say is, I hope Medicare is still around when I need it :={

[bearishgurl]

[quote=ocrenter]I listened to the same interview today in whole and I didn’t get anything negative out of it.

the freelance thing is really just a way to say “involuntary temperary part time jobs.” as for 2-3 jobs. that simply means most employers out there are trying their best to game the system by making sure their employees stay “part-time” and therefore they are not on the hook for benefits. think of it this way, I would rather hire two part timers each at 20 hours a week instead of a full time worker working 40 hours.

as for getting on her parent’s insurance. I think otherwise in the great majority of cases, the young adult would have simply gone without insurance. something catestrophic comes along and it’ll be on our dime.[/quote]

I agree, ocrenter. Not ONLY is it difficult for the young 20-something college grad to land a job with benefits, SOMEONE is paying the premiums for them to have coverage until age 26, if necessary. It could be a parent (out of their payroll deduction), along with their parent’s employer. But they’re not getting “free” coverage. SOMEONE is paying the premium and is is NOT the taxpayers. As I recall, this was part of the health care reform bill that was passed in March of this year. It’s would be logical to believe that the mix of these young people on a plan can only HELP rates for the many millions of adults in other age groups.

Back in my day, when we couldn’t get benefits at this age, we just went without and/or used community clinics. Obviously, today’s young people might try to (and successfully) qualify for Medi-Cal if a medical emergency happened to them and they were without coverage. But this coverage WOULD be on the taxpayer’s dime.

What angers me the most about the recent healthcare “reform” bill is that thousands of folks in my demographic (i.e. “baby-boomers”) cannot now be denied an individual policy. It’s NOT that they CAN’T BE DENIED that bothers me . . . it’s that ALL insurance companies recently received permission to raise ALL INDIVIDUAL PREMIUMS on 10/1/10 to help absorb these losses (just as I predicted earlier in the year). I have an individual health policy that I was “put thru the paces” a few years ago to obtain, namely, I had to have these things done and then wait another 60-90 days for “underwriting review:”

EKG
Height/weight
full length color photos – all views
several blood tests
blood pressure
treadmill stress test
physical exam
open up my entire medical record

All done by the insurance co’s contract nurse. I was recently notified that my premium is going up $38 month on October 1, 2010, and, after having “taken care of myself” over the years, I have been nothing but a “profit center” for them. IMHO, this is only the beginning of many more increases to come.

Why?? Let’s look at how some of my previously-uninsurable “peers” have taken (or not) taken care of themselves over the last 40 years, excepting those that suffer or have suffered from birth defects, injuries from accidents or non-alchohol/tobacco-related or inherited cancers:

-alcoholism, which led to cirrhosis;

-obesity, which led to diabetes, heart disease, collapsed, necrotic veins and poor circulation;

-former crystal meth usage, which led to strokes, partial blindness and rotted teeth and gums (which led to heart disease);

-former crack cocaine usage which led to strokes;

-former heroin and LSD use which led to flashbacks, schizophrenia and even lupus;

-former and current smoking, which led/leads to heart disease, lung cancer and COPD;

-and, former and current use of chewing tobacco, which led/leads to mouth cancer and ulcers.

My large medical insurance carrier is on the east coast and my premium is based on two things (1) health care costs in my service area; and (2) typical health care usage of my demographic.

I am now lumped into the mix with the 300-lb, 40 year chain-smoker living in Kentucky that they formerly freely rejected.

All I can say is, I hope Medicare is still around when I need it :={

[bearishgurl]

[quote=ocrenter]I listened to the same interview today in whole and I didn’t get anything negative out of it.

the freelance thing is really just a way to say “involuntary temperary part time jobs.” as for 2-3 jobs. that simply means most employers out there are trying their best to game the system by making sure their employees stay “part-time” and therefore they are not on the hook for benefits. think of it this way, I would rather hire two part timers each at 20 hours a week instead of a full time worker working 40 hours.

as for getting on her parent’s insurance. I think otherwise in the great majority of cases, the young adult would have simply gone without insurance. something catestrophic comes along and it’ll be on our dime.[/quote]

I agree, ocrenter. Not ONLY is it difficult for the young 20-something college grad to land a job with benefits, SOMEONE is paying the premiums for them to have coverage until age 26, if necessary. It could be a parent (out of their payroll deduction), along with their parent’s employer. But they’re not getting “free” coverage. SOMEONE is paying the premium and is is NOT the taxpayers. As I recall, this was part of the health care reform bill that was passed in March of this year. It’s would be logical to believe that the mix of these young people on a plan can only HELP rates for the many millions of adults in other age groups.

Back in my day, when we couldn’t get benefits at this age, we just went without and/or used community clinics. Obviously, today’s young people might try to (and successfully) qualify for Medi-Cal if a medical emergency happened to them and they were without coverage. But this coverage WOULD be on the taxpayer’s dime.

What angers me the most about the recent healthcare “reform” bill is that thousands of folks in my demographic (i.e. “baby-boomers”) cannot now be denied an individual policy. It’s NOT that they CAN’T BE DENIED that bothers me . . . it’s that ALL insurance companies recently received permission to raise ALL INDIVIDUAL PREMIUMS on 10/1/10 to help absorb these losses (just as I predicted earlier in the year). I have an individual health policy that I was “put thru the paces” a few years ago to obtain, namely, I had to have these things done and then wait another 60-90 days for “underwriting review:”

EKG
Height/weight
full length color photos – all views
several blood tests
blood pressure
treadmill stress test
physical exam
open up my entire medical record

All done by the insurance co’s contract nurse. I was recently notified that my premium is going up $38 month on October 1, 2010, and, after having “taken care of myself” over the years, I have been nothing but a “profit center” for them. IMHO, this is only the beginning of many more increases to come.

Why?? Let’s look at how some of my previously-uninsurable “peers” have taken (or not) taken care of themselves over the last 40 years, excepting those that suffer or have suffered from birth defects, injuries from accidents or non-alchohol/tobacco-related or inherited cancers:

-alcoholism, which led to cirrhosis;

-obesity, which led to diabetes, heart disease, collapsed, necrotic veins and poor circulation;

-former crystal meth usage, which led to strokes, partial blindness and rotted teeth and gums (which led to heart disease);

-former crack cocaine usage which led to strokes;

-former heroin and LSD use which led to flashbacks, schizophrenia and even lupus;

-former and current smoking, which led/leads to heart disease, lung cancer and COPD;

-and, former and current use of chewing tobacco, which led/leads to mouth cancer and ulcers.

My large medical insurance carrier is on the east coast and my premium is based on two things (1) health care costs in my service area; and (2) typical health care usage of my demographic.

I am now lumped into the mix with the 300-lb, 40 year chain-smoker living in Kentucky that they formerly freely rejected.

All I can say is, I hope Medicare is still around when I need it :={

[bearishgurl]

[quote=ocrenter]I listened to the same interview today in whole and I didn’t get anything negative out of it.

the freelance thing is really just a way to say “involuntary temperary part time jobs.” as for 2-3 jobs. that simply means most employers out there are trying their best to game the system by making sure their employees stay “part-time” and therefore they are not on the hook for benefits. think of it this way, I would rather hire two part timers each at 20 hours a week instead of a full time worker working 40 hours.

as for getting on her parent’s insurance. I think otherwise in the great majority of cases, the young adult would have simply gone without insurance. something catestrophic comes along and it’ll be on our dime.[/quote]

I agree, ocrenter. Not ONLY is it difficult for the young 20-something college grad to land a job with benefits, SOMEONE is paying the premiums for them to have coverage until age 26, if necessary. It could be a parent (out of their payroll deduction), along with their parent’s employer. But they’re not getting “free” coverage. SOMEONE is paying the premium and is is NOT the taxpayers. As I recall, this was part of the health care reform bill that was passed in March of this year. It’s would be logical to believe that the mix of these young people on a plan can only HELP rates for the many millions of adults in other age groups.

Back in my day, when we couldn’t get benefits at this age, we just went without and/or used community clinics. Obviously, today’s young people might try to (and successfully) qualify for Medi-Cal if a medical emergency happened to them and they were without coverage. But this coverage WOULD be on the taxpayer’s dime.

What angers me the most about the recent healthcare “reform” bill is that thousands of folks in my demographic (i.e. “baby-boomers”) cannot now be denied an individual policy. It’s NOT that they CAN’T BE DENIED that bothers me . . . it’s that ALL insurance companies recently received permission to raise ALL INDIVIDUAL PREMIUMS on 10/1/10 to help absorb these losses (just as I predicted earlier in the year). I have an individual health policy that I was “put thru the paces” a few years ago to obtain, namely, I had to have these things done and then wait another 60-90 days for “underwriting review:”

EKG
Height/weight
full length color photos – all views
several blood tests
blood pressure
treadmill stress test
physical exam
open up my entire medical record

All done by the insurance co’s contract nurse. I was recently notified that my premium is going up $38 month on October 1, 2010, and, after having “taken care of myself” over the years, I have been nothing but a “profit center” for them. IMHO, this is only the beginning of many more increases to come.

Why?? Let’s look at how some of my previously-uninsurable “peers” have taken (or not) taken care of themselves over the last 40 years, excepting those that suffer or have suffered from birth defects, injuries from accidents or non-alchohol/tobacco-related or inherited cancers:

-alcoholism, which led to cirrhosis;

-obesity, which led to diabetes, heart disease, collapsed, necrotic veins and poor circulation;

-former crystal meth usage, which led to strokes, partial blindness and rotted teeth and gums (which led to heart disease);

-former crack cocaine usage which led to strokes;

-former heroin and LSD use which led to flashbacks, schizophrenia and even lupus;

-former and current smoking, which led/leads to heart disease, lung cancer and COPD;

-and, former and current use of chewing tobacco, which led/leads to mouth cancer and ulcers.

My large medical insurance carrier is on the east coast and my premium is based on two things (1) health care costs in my service area; and (2) typical health care usage of my demographic.

I am now lumped into the mix with the 300-lb, 40 year chain-smoker living in Kentucky that they formerly freely rejected.

All I can say is, I hope Medicare is still around when I need it :={

[afx114]

[quote=flu]My understanding of how this works is the following. The “premium” one pays at a company is just a fraction of the cost of the insurance payments to ensure that person. The other part which is the larger of the two are is the 75%+ portion comping from the company itself. So doesn’t insuring one more person, just cost the company providing the insurance more…If so, do companies really just eat the cost or does it really just pass the cost on down to everyone else with higher premiums? (I think it’s the later, judging by all the letters I’m getting from our benefits office)…[/quote]

Assume I’m a young, healthy student, and my parents have been paying $200/month over 4 years to have me on their insurance policy while in college. I never once went to the hospital or made an insurance claim. Where did that $9,600 go? It went to pay claims of people in the pool who did file claims. Now what happens if you add 2 million students with the same parameters to the pool? There’s an extra $19,200,000,000 to go around. Granted, some of those 2 million new young subscribers will file claims, but certainly not $19bln worth. Unless we’re also adding 2 million additional older subscribers who file lots of claims, it seems to me the math works out as beneficial to bring more younger people into the pool.

[afx114]

[quote=flu]My understanding of how this works is the following. The “premium” one pays at a company is just a fraction of the cost of the insurance payments to ensure that person. The other part which is the larger of the two are is the 75%+ portion comping from the company itself. So doesn’t insuring one more person, just cost the company providing the insurance more…If so, do companies really just eat the cost or does it really just pass the cost on down to everyone else with higher premiums? (I think it’s the later, judging by all the letters I’m getting from our benefits office)…[/quote]

Assume I’m a young, healthy student, and my parents have been paying $200/month over 4 years to have me on their insurance policy while in college. I never once went to the hospital or made an insurance claim. Where did that $9,600 go? It went to pay claims of people in the pool who did file claims. Now what happens if you add 2 million students with the same parameters to the pool? There’s an extra $19,200,000,000 to go around. Granted, some of those 2 million new young subscribers will file claims, but certainly not $19bln worth. Unless we’re also adding 2 million additional older subscribers who file lots of claims, it seems to me the math works out as beneficial to bring more younger people into the pool.

[afx114]

[quote=flu]My understanding of how this works is the following. The “premium” one pays at a company is just a fraction of the cost of the insurance payments to ensure that person. The other part which is the larger of the two are is the 75%+ portion comping from the company itself. So doesn’t insuring one more person, just cost the company providing the insurance more…If so, do companies really just eat the cost or does it really just pass the cost on down to everyone else with higher premiums? (I think it’s the later, judging by all the letters I’m getting from our benefits office)…[/quote]

Assume I’m a young, healthy student, and my parents have been paying $200/month over 4 years to have me on their insurance policy while in college. I never once went to the hospital or made an insurance claim. Where did that $9,600 go? It went to pay claims of people in the pool who did file claims. Now what happens if you add 2 million students with the same parameters to the pool? There’s an extra $19,200,000,000 to go around. Granted, some of those 2 million new young subscribers will file claims, but certainly not $19bln worth. Unless we’re also adding 2 million additional older subscribers who file lots of claims, it seems to me the math works out as beneficial to bring more younger people into the pool.

[afx114]

[quote=flu]My understanding of how this works is the following. The “premium” one pays at a company is just a fraction of the cost of the insurance payments to ensure that person. The other part which is the larger of the two are is the 75%+ portion comping from the company itself. So doesn’t insuring one more person, just cost the company providing the insurance more…If so, do companies really just eat the cost or does it really just pass the cost on down to everyone else with higher premiums? (I think it’s the later, judging by all the letters I’m getting from our benefits office)…[/quote]

Assume I’m a young, healthy student, and my parents have been paying $200/month over 4 years to have me on their insurance policy while in college. I never once went to the hospital or made an insurance claim. Where did that $9,600 go? It went to pay claims of people in the pool who did file claims. Now what happens if you add 2 million students with the same parameters to the pool? There’s an extra $19,200,000,000 to go around. Granted, some of those 2 million new young subscribers will file claims, but certainly not $19bln worth. Unless we’re also adding 2 million additional older subscribers who file lots of claims, it seems to me the math works out as beneficial to bring more younger people into the pool.

[Author]

Posts