Quote:
Originally Posted by KSig RC
That conclusion doesn't follow my logic at all.
Restated:
Insurance is nothing more than pooling risk among many people. Therefore, those in the pool with the greatest risk should pay more.
I don't see a problem here . . .
|
It doesn't say that this money is going to pay for their higher insurance premiums. In fact, it doesn't say that they HAVE higher insurance premiums. It doesn't say that the insurance companies they use are lowering their premiums due to this program. Those are all good questions about the plan though.
I'm also not convinced that these are the highest risk employees. I would guess that elderly employees are higher risk for insurance use. Also, I would think something like cancer would be the most expensive thing, both in terms of time off and expense of treatment. I think pregnancy would be up there too. Maybe women of child bearing age who aren't on birth control should also pay more? I know that some of the researchers do cost analysis for certain illnesses too. I'll try to remember to ask them about it at work on Monday.
Ironically, I cost the system the most money when I lost 65 pounds in 5 months (because it was due to a chronic illness) so, in my personal situation, I would have gotten to pay less when I was the most sick.
You said that co-pays don't count, but the purpose of them, when they were implemented, is to discourage overuse/abuse of the system. The thinking was that people wouldn't rush to the doctor so fast or be willing to be on as many medications if they had to pay a portion of them.
Have you seen the movie Gataca(sp?)? That's what this reminds me of...
Hybrid Mode
