No, that’s true. But the leukemia’s probably still the deal-breaker. If a pre-existing condition is severe enough, the insurance companies tables tell them that there will be too much other coverage required as well, ancillary but not obviously related illnesses. Emergency room visits for fevers, that kind of thing, followed by headaches over what’s really attributable to the pre-existing condition and what isn’t. If the condition is severe enough, it’s just not profitable all around. Other conditions that can reasonably be isolated may be a different story. But rest assured, if an insurance company believes it can profitably cover you, it will.
Hey, mine was only down 27%! Good times!
This is rather baffling. They should be happy to provide such insurance, with costs adjusted to your lower than usual lifespan, of course.
Strato, I assume you’re in the business? I assume the reason is just to avoid admin problems (arguments over whether something is due to the condition etc)?
That’s a rather separate issue.
Only relative to the unprecedented levels of wealth Americans were enjoying previously. And still enjoy, relative to most of the world. It’s all about perspective. I have access to many more things, from Ipods to hospital care, than any King or Queen who lived hundreds of years ago, and I try to remember that part, rather than not being able to afford a shiny new plasma TV or whatever.
Scylla, those who still have good jobs and can keep on dollar averaging into investment vehicles with a longish time horizon will indeed likely do very well on the other side of this.
Some though have lost those jobs, some have the jobs but they are no longer quite so good - income is down, the company has stopped the funds match, they have a real concern that the job won’t be there next month.
Some have had their 529’s nearly halved just as it was time to take it out for the kid’s college; foundations giving out scholarships have lost much of their value so those are down and lenders are not lending for education either. A bunch of kids won’t go to college this year who otherwise would have. Those who will go will have those 529s pretty much depleted just when leaving it ride would be the thing to do. Even people in my position (a physician who has a busy practice and who has putting away dutifully for many years but has three more kids to get through college starting this September) are nervous about it - the funds were there to get them all through but now they are only half there - this next kid will use up the lion’s share of what’s left.
Some had retired within the last few years and had calculated out retirement based on what they had dutifully put away - and now almost half of it is gone and the dividend income they were planning to use for their expenses has gone small. They are having to sell of a significant portion of what they got just to pay expenses. The buy that is GE or a host of other great long term plays right now doesn’t matter. They and many others are having to pull investments out just to make the ends meet and they can only hope that something will be there later - or maybe they’ll luck out and not live as long they had planned for!
There are opportunities out there for those in position to take advantage of them - I’d agree. It’s just that very few are in that position.
So far so good
.
.
.
.
.
.
So far so good
.
.
.
.
.
So far so good
.
.
.
.
.
.
So far so good
.
.
.
.
.
I am in the insurance biz, and yes, pre-existing conditions are often not so easy to isolate. Coverage for pre-existing conditions is often excluded for a period of time, though Federal law has limited the period (I think to 12 months). I seem to recall that the net effect of that law has been to reduce the availability of any coverage at all, at least when certain conditions exist. In any event, certain pre-existing conditions just create administrative headaches. Cancer treatments for leukemia, that’s easy to categorize. How about a fever or some opportunistic illness that has no verifiable and unambiguous link to the leukemia? It’s just bound to be a lot of coverage, and to price it adequately is to make it impractical.
Bottom line, insurance companies will exclude–coverage or potential clients–whatever they believe will create an unprofitable situation. The existence of certain conditions are just too much of a hassle to deal with administratively; they are inherently unprofitable.
Hmmm… maybe I should start an insurance company. In the last 7 years I estimate I have spent $1500 on medical care (including preventative) out of pocket with no recourse to insurance. Yet my pre-existing condition prevents me from getting coverage at any price in my home state.
So if I break my leg in the or some such in the USA, I just hope there is someone I can sue to help cover the costs.
This is very true. However, I do feel I am better off outside the USA where medical costs (and many other costs) are lower… it is just FAR lower for medical… while I can maintain a US-level income.
Having lived in the Third World, I don’t feel bad for Americans who have to skip their daily Starbucks… but do feel for those who are losing their homes and living in tents.
Well, you may be the exception to the others with your conditions. Or perhaps the insurance companies have dated, unreliable morbidity assumptions (less likely). But either way, it’s nothing personal. They’d be very happy to take your money if they thought it would be profitable enough to do so.
That may be so, but still, I think it’s not so easy to make a case that times are great. For people who have good, secure jobs, I agree that times may very well be pretty good now.
For people whose retirement or college savings got killed in the stock market – and who need to draw on that money in the next year or two – things aren’t all that great.
For people who are just graduating college or professional school and who need jobs, things might not be so great.
etc. etc.
Sure, it’s pretty sad. Many other pretty sad things go on all the time though. Maybe it’s just because I live here (unemployment: 40%), next to Zimbabwe (unemployment: uh, high), that wailing about how horrible things are because the unemployment rate went up 2% and they can’t afford their Starbucks coffee, expressed via their broadband connection from a probably <3 year old computer, sound pretty bloody lame.
The people who lost their homes and are living in tents, tend to be trying to survive, not whine on the Internet, so only sympathy for them.
Strato, if one, say, is a completely normal healthy male who gets leukemia, why couldn’t the insurance company simply adjust the cost by lifespan, and the cost of whatever associated troubles occur (ER visits for fever etc), resulting in a normal insurance plan for a healthy person, with the added “expected leukemia cost”? If the leukemia sufferer is going to be paying the “leukemia cost” regardless, they should be happy with the plan, so if their luck is really awful and they break their leg, they can have insurance for that.
I agree 100%.
And by the way, there are stories of postal workers who did very well during the Great Depression, simply because they had a steady income and were able to buy property at low prices.
Relative to the illusory life that existed before, things are worse, sure. But freaking out over things like 7.6% unemployment rate? When most of the developed world has a higher one, and obviously the undeveloped world is far, far worse off?
If you based your retirement savings on what level the stock market would be at when you retired, then you made a gamble and lost this one. Such is life.
Things are a little worse than before. They’re still bloody great compared to almost everything else you can compare them to.
Because the “leukemia cost” would be so high that the cost would be prohibitive. People buy less and less insurance (except life insurance, for certain tax reasons) as the cost approaches and exceeds the actual real cost of having no coverage (e.g., paying for it yourself).
The cost for administering all the unique situations a company would have to care for becomes too much. Setting up the pricing assumptions, building unique products or riders. Increasing the cost of evaluating claims, to deny inappropriate coverage. All that. The concept you’re suggesting works to a point, and it’s logical in theory, but in practice (beyond a certain point), it just costs a lot. It’s easier not to deal with it, and to price it adequately would be to offer a product nobody will buy anyway.
I’m not sure what your point is. You don’t seem to be contradicting me.
Well, you said it’s hard to make a case that times are great. I’d say times are roughly as good as they could be. Which I guess is another way of saying they’re great? And on the bright side, they’ll only improve!
Roughly speaking, I’m as wealthy as Bill Gates. But I’m not going to put a down payment on a yacht any time soon.
Er, no you’re not? Not sure what you’re saying.
I don’t have the money to buy a yacht. Or a Mediterranean villa. Or a sports car. etc. etc.
The fact is that I’m a lot poorer than Bill Gates. However, one can muddy this distinction by using the word “roughly”
Certainly from the perspective of a poor African villager, one could argue that I am roughly as wealthy as Bill Gates. After all, I have a comfortable house to live in; plenty of tasty food to eat; and so forth. Both me and Bill Gates are probably in the top 1% of the world’s population in terms of income and/or wealth.
That’s easy for you to say. They just got rid of the Starbucks kiosk at my office because with all the downsizing and transferring to other offices, there isn’t the “headcount” to support it. There isn’t a Starbucks for miles apparently so now I’m stuck with crappy cafeteria coffee.