The answer to that question depends entirely on how much traveling I’m going to do.
In this metaphor, the amount of travelling you plan on doing is how long you plan on living.
Still think the $300 bike is a good deal?
Ah then of course not. I want a $4.5M Lamborghini Veneno. But I want subsidies so I only pay $1000 for it.
Stupid analogy. None of the plans on the exchanges were of a comparable level.
But wait, there’s more.
http://www.businessinsider.com/cbo-report-senate-healthcare-bill-premium-costs-2017-6
[QUOTE=Business Insider]
According to the CBO, lower premium assistance through the BCRA would cause premiums for older and low-income Americans to increase significantly.
For instance, under current law, a 64-year-old making $56,800 a year would see the premium of the current benchmark silver-level plan increase from $6,800 annually to $20,500. That means premiums would eat up 36% of the person’s total annual income, up from 12% now.
[/QUOTE]
Brackets added by me. If you think I took it out of context, read the article yourself. It’s not long.
No wonder Trump was successful at running casinos! Wait a minute, whadd’ya mean he ran those into the ground, too??
The stories are intertwined with the statistics and the costs, also.
It’s personal.
Putting this quote here because it illustrates the state of leadership of the country on this issue. The Republican party is pulled in different directions, diametrically opposed in the examples of seniors vs. drug companies, big spenders vs. small government conservatives, and economic interests vs. free marketeers and cost cutters. The legislators are captive to demographic whims in the form of Kentucky, for example, ready to punish anyone who tries to extend health care access for poor people, even though there’s a need for it, they’re using it and they kind of like it.
It’s 3D gridlock all the way, no one in leadership is leading and it’s kind of hilarious, except we all have to live here.
This isn’t quite right. In a macro sense, people would overall save money without health insurance and most people will never use enough services to come out ahead. That’s kind of the way insurance works, unless they are making money on the float and their combined ratio is over 100% like P&C insurance. The reason this is worth it to the individual is because people don’t make decisions in a macro sense, and in the event that person is the one who needs more than they are paying in premiums, usually that’s a life changing event which insurance is designed to mitigate.
But for a young, otherwise healthy person, insurance is almost certainly does not have a positive cost benefit from a dollars and sense perspective. It could easily though in an overall sense, depending on how each individual values risk.
Insurance companies do invest the money that is paid in i premiums into the stock market. Car insurance companies used to pay out more in claims than they took in in premiums (as was explained to me by my insurance company lawyer and broker when I had a claim made against me in 2002), I do not know if this is still true, nor whether this was the standard for health insurance, but I see no reason why it shouldn’t be.
In any case, if the concern that HD has is just saving money, then you are right, he shouldn’t be looking for the 4% reduction in premiums, he should just not get coverage at all. The penalty is only about $1000, which I would assume is a much better deal than getting a 4% reduction in future premium rates.
If he is unlucky enough to need the insurance that he forwent, well, at least he saved money.
If he takes the 4% reduction in premiums, and has much poorer insurance that still leaves him out of pocket more than he can afford to pay, then there really is no difference between that and no insurance.
Did it include “and fuck everyone else”?
That’s the silver lining. Or the mayonnaise on the shit sandwich, depending on whether you’re eating or serving.
Yes typically all insurance companies will seek investment return on their premiums prior to paying claims. But while car insurance (P&C) typically loses money on every policy and makes up the difference in investment income, this is not typically true for health insurance companies. The type of claims are much different in health insurance, and while both are regulated by each state’s department of insurance, rates for P&C typically are set very close to cost if not below cost, but this isn’t really true for health insurance companies. Here you can see a trend of around 96% to 98% combined ratio (page 1) for health insurance. Over that same period, you can see for P&C the combined goes well over 100% in some years. 2013 shows below 100%, as does 2014, but after that combined ratios have steadily increased which isn’t present in health insurance.
Here’s one way to offset some medical bills: Declare bankruptcy!
If enough people do that, Congress might pass laws limiting our ability to do this, just as they’ve put limits on our ability to use bankruptcy to vacate our college loan debts.
These guys are not our friends, and certainly no longer our servants.
And where is Bricker?
Right here. What’s up?
They can’t get their own people on board because the ones who might be most vulnerable don’t want to vote for it and the far right tea party / libertarians won’t vote for it unless it is even more vicious. They’ve promised their base for seven years that they would repeal and replace it, without being able to produce a plan to do so. Now since they refuse to compromise with the Democrats or even involve them in the process, they have to get all of their narrow majority to agree to a plan and vote for it.
And they’re finding that they can’t agree on one.
Waiting for you to respond to the links in post number 1252.