So a coworker tells me last week...

[SHRED]

...that health insurance premiums are going up because 26 year olds can stay on the plan now.
This has got to be RW rhetoric considering he listens to FAUX and RW radio talk.
I didn't have my ducks in a row to counter him then but it sure sounded suspicious.

Wouldn't more people in lower cost?
And besides...are people in their 20's really a burden on the healthcare system?


----

[CreekDog]

1. yes you're correct

sometimes i think you can spare yourself the research by just going with the opposite of whatever Republicans are bloviating about.

[rucky]

2. More people in lowers the cost. The healthier the better.

It's common sense. This may be a good opportunity to see if your co-worker can think for himself.

[Schema Thing]

3. you are correct

more 20 somethings should lower the cost.


What is happening around the country is that companies are shifting more of the cost to employees. So where insurance company rates have increased only 3% on average (the lowest increase in 15 years), employees are seeing a 14% increase on average in the amount they are paying.

Basically companies see an opportunity to screw their workers and blame the democrats.

[Vincevega]

5. are u serious?

"more 20 somethings should lower the cost." theres is no way in the world adding more non-paying people(no matter how healthy) to the system can lower cost. Your conservative friend maybe right for the moment since the whole bill hasn't been implemented. But yes allowing 21-27 yrs old to be on their parents insurance policy will increase the premiums, maybe not by 30% but it will sure increase the general premiums of anyone in the system.

And only god can help us since full implementation will not be coming until after the 2012 elections

[sinkingfeeling]

8. What do you mean 'non-paying' people? When a child is added to a policy, there is an

associated increase in premiums. If I were to add a young adult to my policy, the cost goes from $328 to $614 a month.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

12. Not always, depends on the plan's rate structure

Some plans have a family rate which cover all dependents regardless of number

[Schema Thing]

10. are you serious?

they are non paying? I wasn't aware of that, lol.


They lower the cost because they are younger and healthier, dumbass. You seem unaware of how insurance works.

[bighart]

14. No you seem unaware of how insurance works.

See my post down thread.

[Canuckistanian]

4. What a stupid argument

For TWO reasons

1. The more people you have on an insurance plan, the better. The risk gets spread out as the pool of money increases. That's the whole REASON for having insurance.

2. 24 year olds are EXACTLY who you want in an insurance pool. They're low risk and they probably have an income.

Your coworker doesn't know SHIT about how insurance works.

[dkf]

6. Depends on whether the premiums go up for each person on it or not.

Many family plans cover however many kids you have at the same cost. If so then adding them for more years will be more expensive. Just look at the cost of the doctor and then your copayment. The insurance company has to cover that expense without charging an extra premium. I imagine this will increase family plans quite a bit in total cost. An extra 3 kids for up to 8 years would have taken in quite a bit if they paid the premium per child.

If covering extra people for no charge saved money, everyone would get free health insurance.

[Ian David]

7. Healthier, younger people who need to go to the doctor less make costs go DOWN.

It's like if you invited three anorexics to dinner, and split the check four ways, regardless of who ordered what.

The cost of your meal goes DOWN.

[Joanne98]

dupe

[Joanne98]

9. That doesn't even make sense. If they weren't allowed to stay on their parents insurance..

They just wouldn't buy any! So the insurance companies are making MORE money off that part of the HCR bill NOT LESS!

GEEZE!

Tell your co-worker he's a dumbass!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

11. Not at all. Depends on how the company policy is structured in terms of rates

If you have a single and family rate, and you are married or have other eligible children, it would add cost. There are other scenarios as well. The key is additional covered people with no additional revenue. That would in turn cause an overall rate hike. Its should not be very large since people in their 20s tend to be healthy.

[bighart]

13. Keeping a dependant child on your insurance longer will ADD to the cost.

Let me break it down.

I have insurance via my employer. Currently I have a child that is in school and 21, covered by my health insurance. Have a second child that is 23 and out of school. When child 2 graduated from college health insurance was automatically dropped. Now child 2 will be covered until age 26. I already carry family coverage the premiums are the same for up to 6 people and go up slightly after that. Now the insurance is mandated to assume the risk for child 2 for an additional 3 years so by any reasonable standard some of that risk WILL be shared by me in the form of increased premiums. It does not matter that child 2 is in a "healthy and desirable" age range, there is still risk including the risk of catastrophic injury.

I don't understand why anyone would think the above situation would not, or should not cause at least a small increase in premiums.

That is not to say that I think the current premium structures are fair or reasonable.

[Gormy Cuss]

15. In a group plan, the inclusion of those twenty somethings for a few years longer is trivial.

You gave an example where your family coverage premiums are the same for up to six people. That's evidence that the addition or subtraction of one person generally doesn't make much difference on the premium basis. Assuming there were fewer than six in your family when the oldest child was dropped from the plan, you did not see a corresponding drop in your premium. If your covered family unit comprises five members and a new baby is added to the family, your premium does not change.

Why? Because in a pool risk the cost for these family size adjustments just is too small to matter.
Now there is the consideration that HCR may necessitate expanding the pool in greater numbers than would have happened otherwise, but that's where adding only young adults is likely to offset the risks to the pool because twenty-somethings tend to be a healthy lot (much less prone to accidents than those automatically covered teenagers and requiring far less routine medical care than newborns, for example.)

If in fact the participation rate is such that the size of the pool increases when twenty-somethings are kept in it, a large pool spreads the risk better than a small pool and the insurance premium should reflect that in lower costs rather than higher.

[bighart]

16. Would you elaborate on how providing services for more people

without increasing the amount each of those people pay results in lower expenditures? That math does not add up. While the 20 somethings may have fewer overall health concerns they are far more likely to engage in "dangerous" or "risky" behavior that could lead to catastrophic injury.
Using your logic auto insurance should also drop or not change when a 16 year old gets their drivers license as now there are more people in the pool and "a large pool spreads the risk better than a small pool and the insurance premium should reflect that in lower costs rather than higher. "