I believe that it is better (for both me and Bob) than the alternative - being uninsured.
I am not saying I have a problem with the fact that my premiums subsidize Bob, just stating that they do indeed subsidize him - just as they subsidize the healthcare of my colleagues who have children (I don’t have any but pay the same premium for me + spouse that colleagues with spouse + children pay).
I actually don’t have an objection to subsidizing others - I’m just stating that I do in fact subsidize them.
Well, since there’s virtually nowhere you can smoke indoors these days, that’s no longer a factor. In any case, the dangers of second-hand smoke have been hugely overstated.
I’m fine with it. Tax everything that’s a pointless waste of money while you’re at it, like palm reading and pet psychics.
I gotta give credit to the actress in that commercial, she really sells the outrage at paying a couple extra cents for the sugar water she’s lugging home from the grocery store for her kids to drink and develop diabetes from instead of drinking water from the tap.
A certain poster in The Pit seems to believe a zero-percent increase in her taxes will push her and her six-figure-salary husband into poverty, they’ll lose their house, etc.
I always love the “and the funds will be earmarked” phrase. There is no such thing. It all goes to the general fund, and is dolled out as the politicians see fit to their “favorite causes.”
I give to you Social Security, excise taxes, gas taxes, and the cigarette company payouts. None of which are used as they were proposed.
I might consider it, if there was really a separate way to actually direct funds to where they belong… but that’s unlikely in current government.
I popped up in this thread to say this same thing.
Since most of the sugar in sodas these days are corn, and HFCS seems to be the worst for you, I think it would make sense to just remove the subsidies and take THAT money and put it towards health care.
But
That probably won’t happen because the economy of the breadbasket states would fall apart and it would be hell trying to pass that through Congress.
What a stupid premise for a commercial. I don’t think it’s possible to make a good argument for soda being a part of putting food on the table for one’s family. I’m not a huge fan of feeding kids juice, either, but I can see why some parents might think it was a good choice, even if it’s really not the best. On the other hand, I can understand not wanting someone else to decide what’s best for my kids.
To address the OP, I don’t care if they tax juices and sodas. I buy juice for my family maybe once a month and drink soda maybe once every two weeks as a treat. Other than that, it’s water, coffee or milk.
They’re not going to tax juice. It’s sodas and fruit drinks.
The terms “juice drink” and “fruit punch” can be used to describe any drink which includes juice, even if the juice content is 1% of the overall volume. “Fruit drinks,” which is what they are proposing to tax, don’t have to have any real fruit in them at all. But they have lots and lots of high-fructose corn syrup.
That’s a simplistic analysis. First, many employer sponsored health plans require participation because of the gaming the system problem. Second, an insurance benefit must be calculated based on the probability of certain outcomes, so the benefit received is not quite as clearcut as you seem to think. In any case, even if the benefit clearly is greater than the cost, reducing the cost by reducing obesity is beneficial, correct?
Private insurance works by adjusting the cost of the coverage to reflect the cost of providing that coverage, and requires the consent of all parties involved to initiate the contract. If you have a predicted average annual expense of $500 per year, they cannot force you to buy coverage, which means they either charge you between $500 and $500 plus the value of the added reliability, or they go bankrupt because not enough people are stupid enough to sabotage their own well-being by buying their product for more than it’s worth.
If you make decisions that increase the cost of your coverage, your insurer should increase your premiums by the same amount. That removes any need to increase anyone else’s premiums or reduce profits.
The purpose of insurance is to spread the risk to keep costs (relatively) low for everyone. While people who are heavy or smokers or whatever do increase their risk they are making decisions that will mostly impact their health many years down the line. If you start drastically increasing their cost today because they will have health issues in 25 years and push them out of the market towards self insurance or towards moving someplace with socialized health care then you have taken a huge number of paying customers out of the risk pool so that insurance companies can’t afford to pay your claim when you get cancer or fall down the stairs. Besides, where do you draw the line? Do people who lay out in the sun get increased premiums because of the possibility of skin cancer? Should women automatically pay more than men because most women will eventually get pregnant some day? Should people with a family history of diabetes or other chronic illnesses be completely priced out of the market?
Beyond all of that, when you sign up for an employers plan most of the time they don’t make you go through a physical or anything to be eligible for coverage. They will ask about preexisting conditions of course but I have never been asked to weigh myself or give a blood sample to get insurance through an employer through dozens of jobs in several different states. You and Fat Bob and Smoker Susan and Diabetic David all pay the same in premiums because you work for the same company, no questions asked. If you (generic you) feel you are paying too much because of their choices your best bet would be to get some quotes for an individual policy outside of your employer’s coverage and see if you can get a better rate that way rather than be angry because someone in your office really enjoys cake or Parliments.
No, it is not. The purpose of insurance is not to keep costs low, it is to keep costs constant. The goal of insurance is that everyone participating is better off, not just the ones whose expected costs are highest.
I don’t assume that my experience with employer plans is the same as everyone else’s, but this is the first I’ve heard of an employer plan asking about pre-existing conditions. Granted, I’ve only been in a workforce offering benefits for 11 years, but in all 6 jobs I’ve had, I’ve never been asked about a pre-existing condition. I’ve also worked for an insurance company, but had a different experience since I was creating employer-sponsored Medicare plans, which are prohibited from asking such questions, so my experience in that is skewed. Is the practice of asking about pre-existing conditions for employer plans for active employees common?
:dubious:
If the purpose of insurance is to keep costs constant it fails on a spectacular level the whole world over. The purpose of insurance is that everyone pools their money together so that when each individual needs a large payout (car accident, MRI, etc.) they can use that collected money to pay for it. Everyone puts in a little so that when people need a lot they have it available. The fewer people you have pooling money the less you have available when one of those people needs that spectacular payout.
My actual employer never asked about preexisting conditions but if I use my insurance for more than a simple doctor’s visit they send out requests for HIPAA letters and surveys about previous medical conditions, etc.
…You realise that this has nothing to do with what I just said, right? Just because being insured gives you access to that common pool does not mean the price of access has to be the same for everyone - it is possible to set the price based on an estimate of how much the person will withdraw. It costs more to insure a mansion than a shanty, but that doesn’t stop them using the same pool.
Right the fewer people you have but the fewer people who need the spectacular payout.
He means “constant” as in known/fixed FOR ONE YEAR. The costs go up as medical care goes up.
House insurance goes up as house replacement values go up. But your costs are $400 or so per year instead of 0 with a 99.5% chance and 200,000 with a .5% chance, or whatever. 10 years later it might be $500 as your house is worth 250,000. As medical costs go up of course the pool of money needed is higher…and thus the premiums (pool costs per person) are higher too.
If you want to be truly “progressive”, then ban sodas all together. It’s unhealty garbage. When I see people buying all these two liter sodas all I think is “LOSER”! What kind of fool rots their teeth and drinks this sugar flavored water all day, and pays money to do it.
I heard the CEO of coke once say that their goal is to have the tap water in your house in the “c” (cold) position be replaced with coke. He was only half kidding. Coke is garbage and the people selling flavored sugar water ought to be ashamed.
What especially makes me mad is these ‘poor’ people on food stamps getting this unneccessary garbage. Drink water if you’re so damn poor.
