The Health Care Reform Solution

[somarco]

I'm an actuary

Well, THAT's the problem.

As an actuary you should know the following .. .

Most folks have less than $700 per year in medical expenses.

20% of those 300 million are eating up 80% of the total spent on health care.

5% of those 300 million chew up 50% of the total spent on health care. (These, and a few others were listed earlier in this thread. You didn't challenge those, and no reason to, so I assume your silence is agreement).

Health insurance premiums = health insurance claims x 1.??

That 1.?? is around 20% but can be more or less depending on the line of coverage, carrier retention charges, reserves, premium taxes, reinsurance, etc.



And one last thing.

I used to work with an actuary who had a poster on his wall. All you could see was a pinstripe shirt with the sleeve rolled up slightly above the elbow to reveal a tattoo. Seems like there was a skull & crossbones but maybe not. The words on the tattoo read "Born to raise rates"

Was that you?

 

[JMO Fan]

Actually (actuarially?) I regulate rates. So I'm usually trying to oppose increases. But I'd rather see them high enough to avoid future increases, that's just harder to require.

Health care reform would have to deal with the whole $3+ trillion. So it wouldn't matter if most have less than $1,000 in expenses. Federal bills aren't likely to really help those folks (unless they're on Medicaid).

 

[Winter_123]

I'm an actuary. Terminations are bad. I'll just wait 'til you fall off the end of the table.

Total US medical expense estimate is $3+ trillion. Divide by US population 300+ million. Result $10,000.

Should only be divided by the number of people who have access to care to get a true picture of what per capita demand l(versus need) ooks like. Even if some people get free emergency room care and all of that their usage would be much, much higher with health insurance/coverage. Same with high deductible folks. That projection works of course if the government is planning to hold the aggregate expenditure constant and then ration health care, which is a distinct possibility.

 

[ARus]

I stopped reading at "the government would set up . . .".
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


What he said.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The problem with most solutions being proposed is they all revolve around the Marxist concept of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

By accident, the insurance has same principle: you should collect from everybody in case to help to someone who needs it. Let Marxists alone. They have nothing to do with people's health.

 

[Professor Leads]

By accident, the insurance has same principle: you should collect from everybody in case to help to someone who needs it. Let Marxists alone. They have nothing to do with people's health.

Is that you Barry?

 

[ARus]

Is that you Barry?

Let say it in a different way:
"From the standpoint of the insurer, an insurable risk must meet the following requirements:

1. The objects to be insured must be numerous enough and homogeneous enough to allow a reasonably close calculation of the probable frequency and severity of losses....
....."

Does it sound more acceptable now?
https://www.britannica.com/topic/insurance

 

[taterpeeler]

I need something to drink.... that confused me

 

[Yagents]

definition of "insurance" from consumer perspective:

Remove your largest unknown future risks.......for the lowest cost.

 

[AllenChicago]

I need something to drink.... that confused me

I'm on my second glass of vino, and am still foggy.

 

[russelltw]

definition of "insurance" from consumer perspective:

Remove your largest unknown future risks.......for the lowest cost.

I would also add ...for as long as the customer decides they "have or need to protect against" that risk.

ie - Customer "I only need maternity coverage when I get pregnant. Then I only need health insurance until the baby is delivered. Baby is delivered and home, call insurance company to cancel policy."