On 17 Aug 2009 at 17:06, John Williams wrote: > On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Andrew > Crystall<dawnfal...@upliftwar.com> wrote: > > On 17 Aug 2009 at 12:51, John Williams wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Andrew > >> Crystall<dawnfal...@upliftwar.com> wrote: > >> > >> No, considering pre-existing conditions is not how health status > >> insurance works. It takes into account the risks of health insurance > >> premiums rising drastically in the future. > > > > Which are based on your pre-existing conditions, right. > > Yes, health insurance premiums are based on pre-existing conditions. > But health STATUS insurance premiums are not (they are based on > likelihood of future chronic costly conditions).
And in most cases, the likelyhood of you developing those conditions is dependent on pre-existing conditions! > >> | For savings after the first year, at least two of the studies indicate > > >> >> | trend rates lower than traditional PPO plans by approximately 3 > >> percent> >> | to 5 percent. If these lower trends can be further > >> validated, it will > >> | represent a substantial cost-reduction strategy > >> for employers and > >> | employees. >> 3-5%, when the total health cost overrun compared to other >>countries systems is an order of magnitude higher. Hmm. > > 3 to 5% PER YEAR. It adds up. So it magically constantly decreases costs? No, read it again - the trend is that it will be 3-5% cheaper than a "PPO" plan. >Actually, a health insurance market without government interference >would be a lot more consumer-driven than the current system, which >is why I mentioned it. In nearly all cases, if there is to be a Howso? You've just empowered the insurance companies to do a lot more cherrypicking of good customers and to jack rates up for everyone else. AndrewC _______________________________________________ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
