When Obama signs the bill, anybody with a pre-existing condition will be able to a (temporary) national insurance plan for those with high-risk conditions. In 2014, it will become illegal for insurance companies to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, and that plan will end.
What does "insurance" mean? There are innumerable products which fall under that name. Which will I be required to purchase?
I'm 24 with no health problems. My yearly health expenditures are near zero. My largest expenses are probably biannual teeth cleanings. I really don't need health care.
However if I am hit by a truck I would like to be able to afford someone to set my leg in a cast. So I have true insurance with a high deductible($1500USD/year). This coverage is dirt cheap.
Will I have to pay significantly more in 2014? Why should I have to subsidize fat baby-boomers?
What do you plan on doing if you get a serious illness? Could you afford the deductibles for that? The whole point of insurance is that you have to buy it before something bad happens. It's incredibly risky and stupid to gamble on the fact that you're currently young and healthy.
>Why should I have to subsidize fat baby-boomers?
Who you're subsidizing depends on how you think about it. An alternative is to consider that you're subsidizing your future old, unhealthy self. Once you're old and unhealthy, no-one's going to want to sell you a new insurance plan with better coverage. (Ignoring whatever changes the recent bill might bring about.)
I'm not talking about social security. If you enroll in a more comprehensive health insurance plan while you are young and healthy, it will pay for expensive treatment when you are older. But by the time you are old and unhealthy, it will probably be too late to upgrade your insurance.
By definition, you can't wait until you're at high risk of requiring expensive treatment before you insure for it.
I am because it's another intergeneration transfer system.
> If you enroll in a more comprehensive health insurance plan while you are young and healthy, it will pay for expensive treatment when you are older.
Only if said plan sets aside some of the money that you pay now for your future care or there's some source of money in the future for that care. (You're rejecting the third alternative - that you pay your expected costs as you go.)
SS supposedly promised the former (loans to govt) but it's actually the latter (those loans have to be repaid by future taxpayers).
If you don't expect that future taxpayers will be willing to pay you for what you're paying now in SS taxes, why do you think that they'll be willing to pay for your healthcare?
Yes, I know that boomers are getting away with this. Do you think that later generations will?
>Only if said plan sets aside some of the money that you pay now for your future care
No, that's just false. It will pay for your future treatment as long as the insurance company is legally obliged to foot the bill. It has nothing to do with the total amount you pay in -- the whole point of the insurance business is that a company is not guaranteed to make a profit on each individual customer.
If you stopped trying to turn this into a debate over social security, you might be less confused on this point.
> >Only if said plan sets aside some of the money that you pay now for your future care
> No, that's just false. It will pay for your future treatment as long as the insurance company is legally obliged to foot the bill.
You're assuming that the insurance will have money then. I'm pointing out what it takes to make that assumption true.
The relevant term is "counter-party risk", aka the "blood from a turnip" problem.
> the whole point of the insurance business is that a company is not guaranteed to make a profit on each individual customer.
While that's true, it's also true that the total payout plus expenses must be less than the total premiums plus any investment income. Savings and borrowing allows some time-shifting and smoothing but if payouts are too high relative to revenue, the company goes down, regardless of its obligations.
You believe that today's young will receive care when they're old that costs more than they'll pay then. Where is the extra money coming from? It can't be the extra money that they're being asked to pay now because that money is being spent now on today's old people. So, it can only be from tomorrow's young people.
You don't believe that future generations will pay your SS benefits. Why do you believe that they'll pay for your healthcare?
>You're assuming that the insurance will have money then. I'm pointing out what it takes to make that assumption true.
It's not necessary for everyone to pay in as much as they get out in order for that to be the case.
>You believe that today's young will receive care when they're old that costs more than they'll pay then.
As I've repeatedly said, I believe that some of them will. I.e. those who have unusually severe medical conditions for which it would not be feasible to save.
> You don't believe that future generations will pay your SS benefits.
I wasn't saying anything about future generations paying for anything. Again, this really has nothing to do with social security; you are just confused about this.
You've repeatedly claimed that making young people pay now means that there will be money for them (collectively) when they are old.
Where is the money to care for them (collectively) when they're old coming from? It's not coming from the money that they're paying collectively now - that money is being spent. It's not coming from them (collectively) when they're old. That leaves tomorrow's young.
Today's older folks (collectively) get subsidized-by-young health care. Are tomorrow's older folks going to be able to do the same?
>You've repeatedly claimed that making young people pay now means that there will be money for them (collectively) when they are old.
Nope, I didn't say the "collectively" part. I keep explaining this.
>Are tomorrow's older folks going to be able to do the same?
Sure, if the young keep paying. But as I explained, there is no fact of the matter about which young people are subsidizing which old people. One way of looking at it is that young people are subsidizing their older selves, while the current generation of older people are being subsidized by their earlier payments when they were young. There's money going in and money going out, but when it comes to the question of "who's subsidizing whom", it largely depends on how you look at it. It's not as if John Smith's dollar bills are marked so you can see exactly who he's subsidizing.
You didn't use the word collectively, but we are talking about groups and you kept insisting that I was talking about individuals.
> >Are tomorrow's older folks going to be able to do the same?
> Sure, if the young keep paying.
Hold that thought.
> One way of looking at it is that young people are subsidizing their older selves, while the current generation of older people are being subsidized by their earlier payments when they were young.
More money is being spent on old people healthcare than old people are paying for healthcare. From that we know that their heathcare is being subsidized. We also know that young people are paying more for healthcare than they're receiveing AND that the surplus is going to old people healthcare. In other words, young people, as a group, are subsidizing old people, again as a group. (Yes, within each group, some folks are going against the flow.)
Since the young people's surplus is being spent today, it's absurd to say that their surplus is going to their future selves. If it was, there'd be money available when they got old even if tomorrow's young didn't keep paying more than they cost collectively.
> It's not as if John Smith's dollar bills are marked so you can see exactly who he's subsidizing.
I'm not talking about individuals. I'm talking about groups.
However, now that you've said "if the young keep paying", I'll ask how that's any different from social security. (SS payouts aren't strictly determined by contributions - there's a huge "insurance" portion.) Yes, the variance within a group is larger, but both are intergeneration wealth transfers.
If you don't think that tomorrow's young are going to be willing to pay for your generation's SS, what makes you think that they'll be willing to pay for your healthcare? (If you do think that they'll pay for your SS, it's probably reasonable to assume that they'll also pay for your healthcare.)
It usually makes sense not to have insurance against any event that your resources can comfortably absorb. If that were not the case, insurance companies would not be profitable.
My brother was diagnosed with an extremely rare form of cancer last year, a few hours after taking possession of his first home and being responsible for a mortgage. He had 14 hours of surgery to remove an eye socket and half of the top of his jaw and then rebuild it with titanium and hip bone. 10+ weeks of radiation treatment. They're about to start what is technically cosmetic surgery, to give him new teeth and tighten up the side of his face they've been working on. He's back at work now, but he had about 4 months off work.
The cost of the medical treatment? A few thousand for sundry expenses. Australia's Medicare system picked up the tab for virtually all of it. He asked them the face value (hoho!) of the treatments, but no one was really sure how to work it out - it's at least 6 figures. I dread to think what it would have cost in the US...
He didn't lose his house or car. The baby that was born during his treatment didn't bankrupt anyone. He still has a job.
What a chilling example of a socialist government system interfering in his personal life!
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0320/Health-care-...
When Obama signs the bill, anybody with a pre-existing condition will be able to a (temporary) national insurance plan for those with high-risk conditions. In 2014, it will become illegal for insurance companies to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, and that plan will end.